Theories of Ethics

A634.2.4.RB

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

This week our course text introduced two theories of ethics; consequentialism and deontology. According to LaFollette (2007), “Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (Kindle Locations 354-355).

Consequentialism holds that the greater good is central when guiding ethical decision making. Dependent on the level of collective interests that is at stake, the more likely commonly accepted ethical rules or rights may be sacrificed in order to ensure the best consequence for all involved. It is important to highlight important elements that shape the moral discussion of consequence considerations. LaFollette (2007) states that, “consequentialists must explain (a) which consequences we should count, (b) how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and (c) how we should use these considerations when deliberating” (Kindle Locations 398-399).

Deontology, on the other hand, firmly believes that rules are an essential aspect to making ethical decision. Indeed, instead of compromising or “sacrificing” the rules as a consequentialist may determine to be justified, the deontologist’s moral center and obligation is directed by such rules. “deontologists claim that our moral obligations - whatever they are - are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences. Even when following moral rules does not have the best consequences, we should adhere to them” (LaFollette, 2007, Kindle Locations 383-384). While guided by rules, at some point, some rules may conflict. In such cases, all rules must yield to the “primary rules.” LaFollette (2007) tells us that, “If a primary rule clashes with another rule, the primary rule always takes precedence” (Kindle Location 521).

Reflecting on these two theories, I can say with confidence that I subscribe more to consequentialism than deontology. However, I do believe that in more personal situations, I find myself recognizing the moral obligations that deontology rules prescribe. Having been a leader (or in a leadership position) in sports, clubs, and in the military, those personal situations are far and few in-between. In other world, to some degree, I have spent most of my adult life giving more consideration to others (the greater good) than my own personal situations. I have done so willingly and with the passion that service and accountability to something better than myself deserves. While I do believe that mitigating consequences or seeking the best consequence for all tends to be my first course of action; I also believe that certain rules are necessary to adhere to regardless of the consequences. For example, I believe in dire situations, sacrifice is necessary to ensure that the greater good remains intact and perhaps better off. However, when something is truly scarified, the only thing we ensure is complete loss where no one wins. Thus, certain rules do in fact prescribe our ethical decision making.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Kindle Edition.