Consequentialism and Deontology are two very
confusing styles of reasoning in my opinion because “one focuses on the
consequences of our actions and the other focuses on the rules or principles we
should follow independently of consequences” (LaFollette (2007). I have a hard
time wrapping my mind around each independently because I feel every scenario
is different therefore when making a decision of reason how can you decide to
be one or the other? It must be a combination of the two as well as the individual’s
free will in which they decide based on what makes them happy. It is impossible
to say everyone has the same motives and finds happiness in the same things.
There are some similarities though in that people are happy when they have food
to eat, a shelter to cover their heads and are able to satisfy a human’s basic
needs to be alive.
Everyone in the world has these similar interests
that gratify them, however it’s when you divulge on the individual’s character
and morals then it can be assumed that we across the globe are 100% different.
In the news a couple months ago I heard about a Muslim woman who was raped by a
neighbor and her father wanted to have her killed. In my culture in the United
States this act is morally corrupt and the assaulter as well as the father
would be tried in a federal court for their wrong doings. In their country
however it was acceptable. The point of this story is that morally we all have
very different values and define happiness in many different ways. Ted Bundy
found pleasure raping and murdering woman, but I find happiness in being compassionate
and helping others. Our happiness is on opposite sides of a spectrum. He is
sick and I am a good person. Who defines this? Me. The difference is our
definition of happiness and what makes us happy, and further we should think
about how we developed into thinking that these actions make us happy. So in
essence consequences and rules or principles will be individually defined.
Judging
what is right and what is wrong is clearly easy because the human population
agrees they personally do not want to be killed for another person to find
happiness so we as a population can see Ted Bundy’s behavior as wrong.
Looking at the two theories I can see how each of
them play a role in the world we live in today. LaFollette defines
consequentialism as “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the
best consequences” (p23). So the overall purpose of acting consequentialist is
to select the best overall consequences and this is how one would reason out
the best decisions to make. This theory suggests one must specify the following
(a) which consequences are morally relevant, (b) how much weight we should give
them and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning. (LaFollette
(2007). We must decide which of the consequences that could happened matter to
us, then we can determine how much weight each of the consequences have in the
overall decision and then we can decide how to decide. Moreover, “the theory of moral evaluation according to which the
moral quality of any action, intention, motive, character trait, or policy
depends solely on its consequences” (Mason, S. A. (2012).
In The Practice of Ethics,
LaFollette goes further to distinguish two different strategies consequentialists
utilize in reasoning and they are act utilitarian and rule utilitarian. Act utilitarian’s
follow “rules of thumb” in which these people should decide, in each case,
which alternatives will be more likely to promote greatest happiness in the
greatest number. So using the rules of thumb will create some guidelines on
what to do in similar less difficult scenarios, and in doing this you will
maximize the greatest happiness. A rule utilitarian is similar in that one will
make moral decisions on a case by case basis, but they will also “deny moral
rules of thumb and instead contend that rules specify what we should do
morally”. Although in some instances telling a white lie can have an impact on
someone from dying in the scenario of a car crash, the rule utilitarian will
disagree that the white lie although could save someone is morally corrupt.
LaFollette further goes into
identifying utilitarianism in which he describes “ a conscientious utilitarian
must be disinterested: she should not let personal interests distort her moral judgment.
She must also be benevolent: she must care about others’ interests.” None of
these seem plausible to me because no two people define happiness in the same
ways. How can one truly be unbiased and not let personal interests distort
their judgment? Every person on earth is seeking happiness of some kind so when
we are making any decisions, regardless of their impacts, we are making them
based off of our character, values, beliefs, basic needs, and so on. It is
impossible to be unbiased because being biased is who we are and it is derived
by our human interactions, religious beliefs, personal experiences and motives.
Deontology is defined “by the rules,
partly independently of consequences”. In essence a consequentialist believes
rules play no role in making moral decisions where a deontologist believe rules
of what not to do play a major role in making moral decisions. This theory
plays on the authoritative persuasions we each had growing up. Everyone is
taught what is bad and what he or she should not do within their environment,
and this is how deontologist develops what is morally acceptable. They decide
in avoiding these negative behaviors they are acting morally. “In moral reasoning, the
principle that decisions and actions are properly made according to fundamental
moral principles. This position is typically contrasted with consequentialism,
where decisions are based on the outcomes. To see the distinction consider what
the truly moral action should be if a runaway train is about to kill five
people walking on the tracks but you can throw a switch to send it to another
spur where there is only one person who would be killed” (http://www.credoreference.com).
In
conclusion each of these theories can be applied to an individual deciding to
act morally. Will they choose a consequentialist route or a deontologist route?
Or will they simply act with free will? Free will is in every human being and
it is the ability to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. It is
inevitably a person’s choice to make a decision and how to make it. We want to
satisfy our desires and happiness whatever that may be. We are all born with the
same internal organs and a brain that is constructed to believe or disagree
with certain beliefs. It is how we are shaped from birth and different factors that
are involved; such as a mental disorder, that determine our free will. No one
is going to be able to be one or the other they are simply going to be and
decide to be based off of outside forces. If I were a healthy woman living in a
stable home I would think cannibalism is a morally corrupt idea, and the
thought alone would make me uncomfortable. However, put me on an island stranded
and I may think in state of chaos and my human needs being affected it was okay
to maybe eat another person because I am more focused on staying alive.
References:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Mason, S. A. (2012). Consequentialism. Choice, 49(12),
2293-2293. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1032975655?accountid=27203
No comments:
Post a Comment