A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

Standing in opposition, the theories of deontology and consequentialism approach the setting of ethical standards in very different ways. While a deontologist makes decisions based on universal rules or rights of morality, a consequentialist makes them based on an assessment of consequences, their weight, and a judgement on how those considerations should be leveraged (LaFollete, p. 22).

Personally, I see strengths and weaknesses in both theories. While I have a clear aversion to the subjectivity inherent in consequentialism, for instance, I'm also extremely wary of absolutes, which makes deontology troubling. But, I understand that circumstances are important, as well, which makes consequentialism attractive -- even though I also believe that some actions should never be justified based on their results, since that enters into a more heady, philosophical space that, to me, doesn't always reflect real-world truths.

So, in short, I'm conflicted.

Digger deeper into these approaches the past couple of weeks, my initial sense, that in order for any ethical consideration to be truly well-reasoned it must contain multiple perspectives, has only become stronger. Life is just too complicated for blacks and whites. Our choices and actions exists in gray. Take Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative theory -- the idea that we should act morally because, well, we should act morally (LaFollete, p. 42). I dig that. It aligns with my personal views that our actions should not be carried out with ulterior motives, that we shouldn't do the right thing out of fear of retribution or desire for praise but, rather, because we live in a society, and we owe that much to our fellow human. 

But ... who's to say what's moral and what isn't? Who decides? And more importantly, who put them in charge?

Kant's theory works as a baseline, but it lacks context. It's a starting point, and I like the sentiment behind it. If we're truly aiming to think in a complex way, though, other considerations need to be taken into account. For instance, we can look again to the train dilemma: What's morally "right" in the decision whether or not to kill one person in order to save five? Holes show up quickly in Kant's theory when we attempt to use it to answer a question like that.

In the same dilemma, consequentialism comes up short, as well. One objection to utilitarianism -- the theory that "the best action is the one that promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number" (LaFollete, p. 26) -- for example, is that it considers too few consequences in its decision-making. Just because five people outweigh one, does that really mean murder is the right course of action? And how can anybody really know for sure just how many people will be impacted by a person's death? If we lean too heavily on just one philosophy to guide our actions, overconfidence can come too quickly, and if we're overly confident, we're less likely to question our assumptions, and that's when we can get into trouble.

The study of ethics, so far, has proven to be a wellspring of ideas, points and counterpoints, which makes it interesting to explore but difficult to define. Increased uncertainty is a byproduct of increased information, though, which serves as a reminder in one's more confusing or frustrating moments that education is, in fact, happening. Deontology and consequentialism seem like foils, and that should make choosing one preferred path over another easy -- but if that's the case, I'd argue that the person choosing the path is missing the point.

More than anything, these two theories have taught me that the study of ethics is about complexity: less about "knowing" the answers than about searching for them. It isn't about picking a favorite philosopher and following his theories to the letter -- it's about having the wisdom enough to be able to consider many theories at once. Only then can a thinker's approach truly be considered well-reasoned and defensible.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A641.2.3.RB - Am I a Resonant Leader?

Like a lot of young people, I had (and flaunted) an unearned sense of jadedness and cynicism in my earlier years. It wasn’t until I got a little older and experienced my first real struggles in life that I began to see things differently. I realized that, in order to pull myself out of ruts, I needed to be intentional, and that realization eventually carried over into every part of my life and outlook. It’s how I started to see and plan my career and personal goals. It became the foundation of a sort of personal philosophy: simply, to do things on purpose . It’s funny how simple yet powerful that idea can be. “Resonant leadership is common sense, but it is not common practice” (McKee, p. 43). When we start to do things on purpose, though — for real, thought-through reasons — instead of just doing them reactively or instinctively, we begin to feel more in control, and for me, far more positive. That positive tone has served me well over the years. At work, it’s been noticed — ...
Read more

A641.9.3.RB - Becoming a Resonant Leader

Dear Mike, A lot can happen in five years. Five years ago from today, you weren’t married, you didn’t have a kid, you didn’t own a home, you didn’t have an MBA, you’d never been out of the country, you still had school debt, and your salary was literally half the amount that it is now. I say all this to remind you that change is possible, and that it can come quickly. That seems important to point out because, let’s face it, when it comes to the future, you've been indecisive, and you tend to focus on imagined downsides as a reason to avoid taking risks. You want your big life decisions to be logical and serve a grander plan, and that’s great, but you never planned to become a step-father or get your MBA. Those things happened because, regardless of plan, life happens. Things change. Opportunities arise. And you’re not only kidding yourself if you honestly think you can control exactly where you’ll end up down the road, but you’re missing out on potential changes that might act...
Read more

A500.4.3.RB_CavaliereMike

I can’t remember where I heard it first, but there’s a saying that has stuck with me through the years that always seems to pop up in my head when things get overthought, over-“strategized,” or overly politicized at work: “A camel is a horse designed by committee.” I love that saying, not only because it’s funny but because it communicates so much truth about efficiency, productivity and the value/purity of a good idea in the workplace. I’m sure there are a lot of other clichés that communicate the same idea — “Too many cooks in the kitchen” comes to mind — but the sentiment remains the same: At a certain point, the more people contributing to the decision-making process, the worse the decision will become. Now, look, a camel’s fine. They do well in rough climates. They’ve advertised cigarettes and made a fortune. They have a hump — which is practical but, you know, still a  hump . A camel gets the job done, but it’s just not a horse, which is streamlined and simple. Th...
Read more