In Chapter 2, A Tale of Two Theories, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories. Do you tend to lean toward being a consequentialist? Deontologist?
Consequentialism versus Deontology
Consequentialism:
Consequentialism (also known as teleological ethics) is an ethical theory that claims the standards of morality are elements to produce the value of an action. This theory plays as a judge to determine whether or not an action or decision is right by assessing its consequences. Consequentialism argues that the standards by which an individual can compare against and measure their behavior do not return the actual results. Consequentialism suggests that rules are derivatives (LaFollette, 2007) and cannot assess morals. Instead, what evaluates the quality of ethics is the outcome and consequence of an act.
A prevalent example of consequentialism is that most people approve of the statement that lying is a bad habit. However, if the same crowd group is asked about a lie that can save an individual's life, they most likely agree to tell a lie to save a life. This group of people is called "consequentialists."
In some contexts, consequentialism is compared to utilitarianism and Hedonism. Utilitarianism's benchmark to arbiter consequence is the statement of "greatest good for the greatest number." In contrast, Hedonism conditionally agrees that something is "good" if the result and product are pleasuring or do not hurt and avoid pain.
The difficulty of keeping up with consequentialism's guidelines is why it is occasionally criticized. Some go beyond and claim that it is impossible to utilize consequentialism because knowing the results of action ahead of time is almost unattainable. Even if the results as arguably satisfying, this dichotomy can prompt philosophers to think consequentialism is objectionable since the output is based on variable inputs.
Regardless, perhaps the best way to describe this topic is the classic consequentialism that says "the end justifies the means."
Deontology:
Deontology's definition is as easy and simple as its application. Deontology merely means "follow the rules and accomplish their duty." Even though this approach doesn't seem structurally delicate, it conforms well with humans' intuition about whether or not something is ethical. Deontology falls within those moral theories that coach and assesses our choices. It tells us what is required to be done, what is forbidden, or what's accepted by society. Contrary to consequentialism, deontological ethics consider an action "good" or "bad" merely because of the characteristics of the action, not its results. Therefore, deontology is not subjective since it only follows the rules.
Although deontology has more strengths and stays in line with human instinct, it also poses some issues if followed too rigidly. Deontology can sometimes deliver results that some consider unacceptable. For example, suppose you are a high-rank doctor or healthcare authority and learn that a lethal virus is being engineered in one of the Biolabs within your department. You know that there is a risk of this virus leaking and causing a deadly outbreak. However, your department's rule is not to share private information with the public. Therefore, you remain silent.
Additionally, your professional code dictates that you do interfere with a subject that doesn't involve you directly. From an ethical standpoint, you are practically lying and fudging even though your code of conduct conforms to your deontological standards. In this case, the following deontology urges not to violate its black& white rules. However, letting the deadly virus develop and ignoring the leakage risks does not fit ethics and logic.
In conclusion, I say that I would stand in the middle ground between the two theories. While I follow the rules to satisfy my ethics (deontology), I also continuously evaluate the outcome of my decisions to ensure the applied rules are leading to my desired product, and this product pleasures both me and others involved.
References
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell Pub.
Comentarios