Before delving into my personal thoughts on Consequentialism and Deontology, I would
first like to offer the definitions of both schools of thought that resonated
the best with me. The first definition
is of Consequentialism which is defined as:
An approach to ethics that
argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome
or consequence. Thus, a morally right action is one that
produces a good outcome or
result, and the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh all other considerations (Philosophy Basics website, n.d.).
Within
consequentialism there are multiple types such as Utilitarianism, Rule
Consequentialism, Egoism, etc. Each type is a variation of the main theory but
all are based on the concept that “we are morally obligated to act in ways that
produce the best consequences” (LaFollette,
2007). Now this is a very generic way
to look at consequentialism, since apart from looking at consequences, the
consequentialist also will consider whether the consequences are morally
relevant, the importance or weight of each consequence and how it should be
applied in moral reasoning (LaFollette, 2007).
Deontology
on the other hand is “a system
of ethics
that judges
actions
based on whether they adhere to a rule or a set of rules”
("Deontological," n.d.). Therefore a deontologist would decide if
something is ethically wrong or right depending on whether it breaks or follows
a rule (Goldstein, 2013). One of the aspects open to debate for
deontologists is determining which actions are right and which ones are wrong.
After studying
both theories I feel that a combination of both theories is necessary and useful
in making ethical decisions. Basing our
decisions from a purely consequential viewpoint could lead to very poor ethical
decisions and cause us to act immorally, and the same can be said of deontology.
An example of this would be an act that
most of us would consider immoral, which is rape. What if all the men of a society decided that
raping a woman was a good thing because it provided a benefit to the entire
male population? It would fill a very
basic sexual need, provide a quick means of procreation and the general population
would be extremely happy. We could
consider this an action that provides the greatest and most beneficial
consequences. Using this same example,
let’s imagine an apocalyptic world where there are many men but only one or
two women. The men in this society have
decided that rape is a necessary action that will provide the greatest
consequences for all involved. The human
population has dwindled and there is an urgent need to repopulate the earth to
create more life on the planet. In both
of these instances I feel rape is morally wrong, yet in the apocalyptic
setting I would be more inclined to accept the action as a duty or moral obligation.
My standpoint would be considered
consequentialist. A deontologist on the
other hand would consider the rules in both scenarios. Imagining that the moral rule that raping is
bad, a deontologist generally would say that rape is rape, regardless of the
consequences, and therefore it is morally bad. Yet, in the apocalyptic setting, if
repopulating the world was a duty that we all needed to fulfill then raping
would be considered good because it is a moral rule that enjoins “me to promote
the happiness of others” but the action should not be taken “if I thereby
violate some stronger or more important rule” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31). In this case, repopulating the Earth is an
urgent need and the duty of all therefore ethically we can support the decision.
I would
venture to agree with Smith when he says that “any consequentialist system of
ethics requires deontological rules to make it tick” and “any deontological
system requires consequentialism for its implementation” (Smith, 2011). Smith resumes these statements by concluding
that “all ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialist in
nature, since they all require a rule for motivation and an outcome measure for
implementation”. The classic story of
Robin Hood is a great example of how consequentialism and deontology come
together. A deontologist would say that stealing
is morally unethical. But if we set a
rule that we only steal from the rich, and we can prove that the consequences
are beneficial to all since the rich will still more than likely continue being
rich, but the poor will be less poor but happier, then we can justify this
action as morally acceptable.
I feel that
we can’t adhere to the strict application of one theory or the other but need
to consider each situation carefully and use thoughtful reasoning and ethical
theorization when deciding how to act in different situations. Being equipped with the knowledge of both
theories and accepting the possibility of using one or the other or combining
the two, will give us a better perspective and a higher chance of making
morally just decisions.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment