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
No comments:
Post a Comment