On
Chapter 2 of “The Practice of Ethics”, LaFollette gives us a tale of two
theories, consequentialism and deontology. These two styles of reasoning of
ethical theory are shaped by the most current knowledge and understanding of
ethics. Consequentialism deals with the consequences of our actions while
deontology deals with the rules or principles we should follow independently of
consequences (LaFollette, 2007).
Consequentialism
is about choosing the best option available in terms of the consequences of the
actions or options available. In other words, out of the options available,
people will choose an action depending on the best consequences of that action.
When choosing such action or option, consequentialist will take into
consideration which option will do the greatest good for the greatest amount of
people. This forces consequentialists to take into account the interest of all
of those affected or will be affected by the action or option. According to the
author of the text, any adequate consequentialist theory must specify: which
consequences are morally relevant, how much weight we should give them, and how
we should use them in moral reasoning (LaFollette, 2007).
In the utilitarianism
view, the only consequence that should be considered when choosing an action is
happiness. Therefore, the best action will always be the one that promotes the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. A good example of this
would be a brief review of last week’s problem, the “train dilemma”. The scenarios
of this problem dealt with the power and stand in ethical decision-making
scenarios. When I first dealt with this problem, I used the theory of
consequentialist without realizing it. The problem consisted of 5 kids playing
on the main train track, one kid playing on the sidetrack, and the moral choice
of throwing or not throwing the switch.
In the
first scenario, I chose to throw the switch so the train would end up in the
sidetrack in order to save the greatest number of kids. In the second scenario,
I had the option of throwing an elderly man into the tracks to stop the train
and save all the kids. As I am a believer of not taking an innocent life, I
chose not to throw the elderly man into the tracks but to still throw the
switch for the train to go into the sidetrack. My reason behind throwing the
switch is because it would be easier for me to save one child than it would be
to save 5 kids. By only having to save one child, the lives of the other 5 kids
will be spared and it would be easier for me to get the attention or move only
one child from the tracks of the train. In both scenarios I would do my best to
save everyone and I believe that by throwing the switch I can still save the
life of the child in danger.
Unfortunately,
in the third scenario, the one child in the sidetrack is my child. After
reflecting on the consequences, the options available, and the weigh each
consequence has, I chose not to throw the switch, as the issue is now more
personal because it involves losing my child. Even if the moral compass of a
consequentialist were to say that the best option and the greatest happiness
would come from throwing the switch to save the 5 kids, I would not do it. It
is the life of my child and as a woman; it is my duty and instinct to save my
kid. Therefore, the theory of consequentialism can only get me so far. It can
help me make decisions when it does not involve life or death situations with a
loved one. The moment the problem or options become personal, there is no
rational thinking of saving the greatest number of kids because I would chose
family before anyone else.
The
second style of reasoning is the deontology theory. According to LaFollette,
deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or
rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of
consequences (LaFollette, 2007). In other words, instead of making decisions
based on the consequences of the action or options available, we make decisions
by our rights and obligations in ethics. Consequences are only a small part of
the decisions, as the decisions should be based on doing what is right as
defined by the rules. Following the deontology theory, it tells us that we have
the necessary knowledge and understanding to know what are the right things to
do. Therefore, in any given situation you should follow and do what the rules
(or laws) tell you to do.
After reflecting
on the information above, it is now more apparent to me that the choice I made
in the third scenario was following the deontology theory. Following my
instincts, knowledge, and understanding of ethics to do the right thing, I will
be able to save my child. I do understand that it is wrong to put others in
harms way and I know I wont be able to live with myself if the kids die but,
the love of a mother wouldn’t allow me to take such a risk. The 5 kids are
sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters of other people so I would still try to
save them all even if it means that I will die. Overall, I believe that life
and theories will have a lot of gray areas in which only your knowledge,
understanding, moral, and principles will be able to guide you to make the
right decision.
Reference:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The
Practice of Ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publication
No comments:
Post a Comment