Theories
of Ethics
I enrolled in this course for a few reasons. Ethics is incredibly relevant, after more
than their share of incidents bringing ethical leadership in to question, the business
community demands ethical performance from leadership at all levels. My degree would not be well rounded without an
ethics component. I have always
considered myself an ethical person and I am interested in learning more about
the subject. Finally, I thought I had a
good understanding of ethics and, therefore, a semi-solid foundation to build
on.
I never stopped to think about what I considered right
or wrong or why I thought so. I never
considered the process by which I make decisions on moral issues. I always used intuition or instinct to guide
my decisions and I did so with some success.
No one has needed to correct or amend decisions I have made in the
past. So, I entered this course with a
degree of confidence that I would have few problems completing the requirements.
Then I read the first chapter. I will just say it is written in a manner
that I have a difficult time following.
I would call it circular. It
poses a question that leads to a different question that goes back to the
original question but it is just different enough to generate another thought.
And, there are no answers. Everything is
a continuing open discussion. The text is
worded differently, I know every word on the page, but the order in which they
are arranged does not seem natural. I have read the first three chapters completely
through two times. I have had to read some paragraphs four or five times to
even get a week grip on the message I am supposed to glean. I am not gleaning much; my confidence that I
have understood what I have read is low.
I am not a stupid person, but so far this course has me questioning my
intelligence. I can only hope I figure
it out soon. But enough fun ands games. I will get back to work.
As I said earlier, I have never thought about ethics
or morals, they just are. They have to
do with actions and they have to do with knowing right from wrong or good from
bad. These are things everybody knows. Therefore, everyone should be able to distinguish
the right choice from the wrong choice or the good scenario from the bad. It seems simple, it follows logic, but it is
wrong. What is right and what is wrong
even at the most basic level varies widely from individual to individual (LaFollette,
2007). There is no black and white;
there are no answers. Ethics is shades
of grey and is a cognitive journey of reasoning in search of the least wrong
answer.
We can go about this journey of reasoning a couple of
different ways. The two schools of thought
are quite different in almost every way and followers of each school have argued
for centuries over which is correct. One
school of thought is called consequentialism and the other is called deontology
(Lafollette, 2007). Consequentialism is results oriented. Consequentialists believe that the action
that produces the best consequences is right and those that do not are
wrong. Deontology is act oriented. Deontologists believe we should act according
to prescribed rules regardless of the consequences. Seemingly black and white statements describe
the two schools, but as detail is added to each school, the lines begin to blur. Neither of the two are completely without
compromise (LaFollette, 2007). As I said,
ethics is shades of grey.
I was taught [my] version of right and wrong as a
child much like everyone else. Rules that
were laid down by my parents, mostly my mother, and enforced by anyone older
than me. It was repetitive and consistent. Punishment was immediate and consistent. There was a rule for every occasion. I was expected to follow them all without
fail and without excuse. As a child I
did exactly that. As I got older, rules
were added, age appropriate. While
trying to stick my finger in an electrical outlet was still absolutely
forbidden and punishable, the new rules seemed to be more flexible. The rule, be home before dark, was sometimes
negotiable. Who I was with, what we were
doing and how much longer would it be were questions that, if answered to her
satisfaction, could buy me another 30 minutes. There were still hard and fast rules as well that
were not to be broken. My mother passed
away a few years back now, but I still do not break those rules. Mom was loosening the leash and giving me more
responsibility. She also held me
accountable. If I was late and she did
not know who, what, and how long, there was a price to pay. She did not know of ethical schools of
thought, but her actions were deontological.
The rule was still the rule regardless of the conditions. The conditions did not change the rule nor
did they relieve me of the responsibility to follow it.
I do not recall having any consequentialist
discussions with my parents until after I was married and had children of my
own. Of course, I did not know these
terms at the time nor did my parents.
Looking back, I find it interesting that my mother was a deontological
thinker to her core. The rules
mattered. My father was just the
opposite. To him the rules or actions
made no difference other than to provide the best possible results. I have no idea how they survived each other
for 50 years. At this point, I think it
is important to restate that my mother was primarily responsible for our moral
development and Dad was okay with that.
Consequentialists have it, at least in theory, harder
when developing a moral theory. This is
primarily due to the fact that hard rules do not drive their actions,
consequences do. Therefore, for them to
develop a usable moral theory they need to know three things: 1) which
consequences are morally relevant, 2) how much weight should each carry, and 3)
how, precisely, should they be used in moral reasoning (Lafollette, 2007). The theory must also take into consideration
the interests of everyone involved.
There are consequences that have no affect on moral
deliberations and need not be included.
Consequences that have an effect on the significant interests of anyone
involved must be included. Choosing the
weight of a consequence involves the nature of the interests affected, the
number of interests affected, and their probability of occurrence for each
interest affected. How they are entered
into moral reasoning has to do with the utilitarian concept of the consequence
that creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
I am still trying to evaluate my beliefs and
determine whether my tendency is deontological or consequentialist. I have found it to be a difficult thought
process. Is it possible to subscribe to
both? Last week I analyzed the Train
Dilemma. I will not go into the details,
but in the second dilemma, I used both deontological and consequentialist theories
to arrive at my final decision. I chose
not to push the man based on the rule and to throw the switch based on the
consequences. The leads me to believe that
perhaps utilizing both theories to make a decision on a practical ethical issue
is a viable alternative. I am sure that
I will eventually be able to determine which theory describes how I reason
through issues. I tend to think exceptions exist for many rules. However, right
now, I can appreciate and see myself agreeing to pats of both theories.
~Pete
Reference:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment