Theories of Ethics

            Morals and ethics have always been a part of my life.  However, that is not to say that I have always behaved morally and/or ethically.  I was raised (as I assume most are) to choose “right” over “wrong” or good over bad.  Most of the time, I followed the moral and/or ethical “rules” because that is what I believed we ought to do.  As a youngster and through adolescence, I behaved in a way that I thought others expected of me.  Occasionally I erred, but not because I had malice in my heart.  I broke the rules because I was immature, ignorant, and/or perceived that the benefits outweighed the costs.

            I did not question why the rules were the way they were.  I did not critically think why something was right or wrong, it just was.  I understood that if I did “wrong” or “bad”, then I would face the consequences accordingly.  Morality, as I saw it, was a list of “do nots” i.e. do not lie, do not cheat, etc.  In addition, I viewed consequences as something directed only at me.  For example, if I would steal, I accepted that consequences were the punishment I would receive if I were caught.  I did not consider other consequences such as the effects on those whom I stole from. 

            Today, I am a much different person.  I generally live by this maxim, ‘If I always do things right, then I will have no regrets’.  My moral and ethical foundation is strong – I am cognizant and understand (usually) what is right or wrong – and I choose to behave and act in a way that is right.  In contrast, when I was much younger, I behaved and acted in a way for the reasons above (to please others and/or avoid punishment).  Yet, despite my strong moral compass, I still often find myself at ethical “crossroads” where I am not so sure which path is the (truly) right one. 

            Therefore, I recognize the value of the ethics teachings I have received during my college education.  The teachings have given me ethical awareness and understanding, both of which I need when at a “crossroads”.  When I read The Practice of Ethics by LaFollette, I notice two recurring themes – consequences and principles.  These two simple notions are further expounded into separate theories, consequentialism and deontology (LaFollette, 2007). 

            LaFollete wrote that the theory of consequentialism is one where a person is “morally obligated to act in ways that produces the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 23).  Haines (n.d.) elaborated further writing that, “…the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences”.  In other words, with consequentialism, the aim is not to make the most moral and/or ethical decision but to make the decision that brings provides happiness for the most people.  Unfortunately, I believe that most people do not see consequences as such.  They (like I used to) only see the immediate and direct consequences as it pertains to them.  Yet, as much as I would want to believe that I think things through, it is not possible to recognize all of the consequences.  Thus, there is one problem with consequentialism – it is based on the assumption that I (or others) make all our decisions by thinking about overall consequences. 

            So what if I am unsure that my ethical decision will lead to the best outcome?  If it does not, then I will be morally wrong.  What if I am more concerned about my morality than the “ends justifying the means”?  Then I ought to consider deontology as the framework for my ethical decision-making.  Deontology is the theory where one’s behavior and/or actions are the benchmark in ethical decision-making, and not the consequences.  LaFollete (2007) wrote that “the consequences of our actions are either morally irrelevant, or at most only a small portion of the moral story” (p. 53).

            Deontology is only concerned with a decision that conforms to a moral norm – the consequences be what they may.  If I make ethical decisions from a deontological perspective, then I assuredly will always be righteous.  Yet, as appealing as that may sound, always choosing “right” is not practical in the real world.  For example, Mastin (2008) wrote about Immanuel Kant’s notorious argument that lying is always wrong “…even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim” (para. 3).  In reality, we do have to deal and live with the consequences of our decisions. 

            I believe that my own ethical decision-making is a balance between the two theories.  Both have their merits and drawbacks.  That said, I believe that consequentialism is the more reasonable choice in the real world.  I can adjust my moral bearing (but not completely deviate from my values) to bring the most happiness.  Deontology, on the other hand, is an absolute in a world where problems are not absolute.

References

Haines, W. (n.d.). Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Masten, L. (2008). Retrieved from Philosophy Basics: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html

The Train Dilemma

The Train Dilemma

            In ‘The Train Dilemma’, I was faced with several scenarios in which I had to make an ethical decision.  In each of the scenarios, regardless of my decision, the outcome was always bad – in any decision, the outcome was that someone, or a group of people, would die.  It is most convenient for me to make decisions based on instinct and/or emotion.  However, I understand that that kind of decision-making does not lend the best method for solving a problem – it is asserted that ethics is not what I personally feel is right or wrong (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  I must have a logical way to make ethical decisions.  Thus, I consider the framework and guiding principles below. 

            Christensen & Boneck (2010) discuss one such framework for ethical decision-making in their case study of right-versus-right ethical dilemmas.  I believe ‘The Train Dilemma’ scenarios are right-versus-right ethical dilemmas because I am trying to save a life or lives (albeit at the cost of another’s/other lives).  However, the scenarios can also be viewed as between two “bads”.  The aforementioned framework consists of four general questions to ask.  They are:

1.      “Which course of action will do the most good and the least harm” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Utilitarian Approach (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).

2.      “Which alternative best serves others' rights, including shareholders' rights” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Rights Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).

3.      “What plan can I live with, which is consistent with basic values and commitments” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Virtue Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). 

4.      “Which course of action is feasible in the world as it is” (p. 54)?

            Each of the above questions are considered separate and alternative actions but may be used in combination.  I must consider the approaches and then decide which alternative(s) best fits the situation.  In addition, LaFollete (2007) wrote that in deliberating the ethics of a decision it we must consider the criterion of consequences and principles.  Consequences refers to the outcome of one’s decision and principles refers to “stick to our moral guns” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 20). 

            My decisions in the following scenarios will be based on the facts that I know, applying ethical decision-making guidelines, and following my heart (after all, it would be naïve to believe that I can completely ignore my emotions/feelings).  

            In the first scenario, I must decide between saving one life or five lives.  My decision is straightforward; save the five lives (using the Utilitarian Approach).  In the second scenario, I must decide between pushing (or not) an old man into the oncoming train, and thus saving five lives.  My decision is to not push the old man and considering the ‘Fairness or Justice Approach’ (Velasquez, et al., 2015).  In this scenario, I believe that the old man has the right to live as much as the five young children; the difference is that the children’s lives were already in danger by whatever events that led to that point, whereas the old man’s life is not.  (This decision assumes that I am not responsible for causing the five children to be on the tracks.)  This is not a decision between saving saving lives where both are in simultaneous danger but forcing one to give his or her life for another.  I say that I would be more inclined to sacrifice my own life in this scenario (and in all three scenarios for that matter).  However, do I believe that I have the courage to do so?    

            In the third and final scenario, I must choose to save either my own child’s life or the lives of five other children.  This is the most difficult decision to make.  Logically, I ought to choose to save the lives of the five children.  This decision is the action that will do the most good in saving five lives over one.  Moreover, it foregoes the bereavement of five separate families versus one family (my own).  However, I said it is the most difficult ethical decision because it concerns my own self-interests (and feelings).  In considering the consequences of my decision, I will take the ‘Egoistic Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  In the egoistic approach, I am (selfishly) making the decision to produce the greatest amount of good for me.  This the scenario in which I will be unable to ignore my emotions/feelings. 

References

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013, May). Retrieved from www.brown.edu: https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

Christensen, D., & Boneck, R. (2010). Four questions for analyzing the right-versus-right dilemmas of managers. Journal of Business Case Studies, 53-58.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M. J., Shank, T., McLean, M. R., DeCosse, D., . . . Hanson, K. O. (2015, August 1). Retrieved from www.scu.edu: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/