October 23, 2018
Consequentialism.
Consequentialists
say that people are “morally obligated” to act in ways that produce the best
outcome for others. LaFollette in his
book, uses the examples of choosing a job or a major in college, with the best
outcome in mind for the one making the decision. Those examples could be called prudence. Prudence is different from overall
Consequentialism in that prudence refers only to what is best for an individual
making those choices. Consequentialism
considers the interest of all who are affected by a decision. This is a huge undertaking. Further, Consequentialism requires three
steps to be taken in a moral decision.
A. Which consequences are morally relevant? B. How much weight should we
give to those consequences? & C. A set of rules or guidelines in how to use
these factors in moral reasoning. So
far, this sounds great. There are
problems of course.
First,
one cannot possibly know all the consequences that a moral decision or
non-decision can have on others (and how many others at that). Many consequences are “hidden”. They are not known to the person making the
decision. A good example of this is
found in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
James Stewart played the lead character, George Bailey, who ran into
some financial trouble and potential scandal.
He “wished that he had never been born”, and his guardian angel granted
him that wish to show him the “consequences” of that decision. George is subsequently dumbfounded and
confused about the condition of this “alternate reality”. Apparently, George was such a good person in
his real life, that his actions (most of them moral and correct) had a
widespread but hidden consequence for a great number of people. I can’t think of a better example to
illustrate the hidden consequences that our moral decisions create. It is also part of why Consequentialism is
such a huge undertaking. The two other
problems that Consequentialism has, is that it lacks a moral foundation in its
code, and it has a branch of its theory called Utilitarianism. A Utilitarian would think it is perfectly
okay to kidnap a healthy person off the streets, kill him, harvest his organs,
and save 5 other people (LaFollette, 2007).
What? That is an extreme example
of Utilitarianism, but it illustrates the two main problems that I have with
Consequentialism.
Deontology.
Deontology
contends that there are strict moral codes and limits as to what we can do to
other human beings. They would be
shocked as I was, with the example of the utilitarian kidnap scenario. Deontology appears to abide by the golden
rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is an abbreviated definition of the
golden rule, but the point is made.
Deontologists often clash with Consequentialists even in circumstances
when they agree on the choice being made.
They disagree in the reasoning that led them to the same conclusion. For
instance, If I made a promise to take a co-worker to get his car out of the
repair shop. The correct decision is to
fulfill that promise. A consequentialist
would say that I should keep my promise only
because failing to do so, may lead to some bad outcome for my
co-worker. A deontologist states that I
should keep my promise because it is the morally
correct thing to do. Both theories
arrived at the “correct” solution, but for very different reasons.
One
of the advantages of deontology is that it reflects the moral code that most of
us were brought up with in our homes and in our churches. The other advantage
is that consequentialism, taken to extreme, becomes very unappealing. Immanuel Kant was one of the great thinkers
in Deontology that was quoted extensively in LaFollette’s book. Kant says, “People ought to be moral, period
– no matter what their desires or interests, or beliefs” (LaFollette, 2007. p.
34). I agree with him on that
point. Where I disagree with Kant, is
when he asserts that people should be moral at all times, and implies that we
are born with that trait and knowingly deviate away from it. Deontologists also have two diverging points
of view. They can either give something
some moral weight when determining the consequences of their decisions, or they
must simply state that consequences do not matter and a strict moral code must
be followed always. A good example of
that, would be Jim Carrey’s movie, “Liar Liar”.
In this movie, his son makes a birthday wish that his dad (Carrey) could
not lie for 24 hours. The results are
hilarious. Part of the reason the movie
is so funny is because it strips away everything – down to the white lies that people
tell daily. Are white lies immoral? The answer is that sometimes they are.
Conclusion.
I
find myself more in line with the deontology point of view on ethics. One reason is because they utilize a moral
code and incorporate the golden rule.
Another reason is because they don’t totally discount the weight of
moral decisions that consequentialists give to everything. However, unlike the pure consequentialist,
they don’t have to make a decision
based upon external consequences to others.
They can consider it, but they are not forced into any such
decision. I think it is prudent to give
weight to moral decisions and to look at the resulting consequences, if
possible. As stated in our examples, we
cannot always know what the consequences are of one of our decisions. Some of them remain hidden. That is why some people, such as myself, seek
wisdom and hidden knowledge. It becomes
a habit as well as a life-long pursuit.
Good luck to all in your search.
Respectfully,
John
Hescott
References:
LaFollette,
Hugh. (2007) The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
John Hescott (2017-2018)
No comments:
Post a Comment