Theories of Ethics
I have never thought so much on something as I have on my reflections of ethics and where I stand in terms of them. In trying to process and decide what choice(s) I would make in the 'Train Dilemma,' I made considerations in terms of a consequentialist without actually have lived through the scenario, which might I add, is quite different. After reading about the considerations, or lack thereof, that consequentialists make, I would have to say that I would now change my decision on throwing the switch and redirecting the train from the track with 5 children to the one track with one child. Why? I suppose it has more to do with the fact that I directly did not decide the current course and implications of the track the train is currently on and choosing to take another's life in order to change the consequences of what may 'naturally' occur seems unfair, unjust, and downright immoral! "Consequences - and only consequences - can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others" (Alexander & Moore, 2012).
Withstanding Consequentialists' total lack of "strict moral limits on what we can do to others" (LaFollette, 2007), I believe there is a place for consequentialism in ethics. It is necessary to take into consideration the effects that your decisions will have on others and the relative environment, as well as the impact it may have directly and indirectly upon yourself. LaFollette (2007) states, "...any consequentialist theory must specify (a) which consequences are morally relevant (i.e., which we should consider when morally deliberating); (b) how much weight we should give them; and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning." There is a place for consequentialist concerns when it comes to deliberating morals and their ethically relevant consequences, but as a whole, there is not enough balance in the use of one's morals ethically if "we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences" alone (Lafollette, 2007).
Deontology is based on the moral code that we develop and use as the sole deciding factor in ethical decision-making despite the consequences. The only concern is determining which relative code(s) is morally weightier than others under the given circumstances. Lafollette (2007) also discusses that the morals, or rules also specify what to do when there is a conflict between them; that there is some meta-moral - one to rule them all - so to speak. For example, if I was to witness an infant about to fall off a chair, but in consideration to go help keep the child from falling, my act of trying to help may, in fact, cause the child to get hurt. If I chose to do nothing, the child may still get hurt, but not at the cause of my actions. My meta-rule would be to err on the side of helping because of my belief that my intervention would be of benefit to others.
It would be wise if people considered multiple ethical philosophies in support of their ethical decision-making. I cannot see myself justifying making morally related decisions where the consequences are irrelevant, nor can I be so concerned with the moral consequences alone that the decision I make is directly, or indirectly contradicting the consequences. Ditto & Liu (2010) offer "Is it possible that people are able to enjoy the best of both worlds, touting their moral imperatives while at the same time believing that the cost-benefit analysis is on their side as well?" I think so.
References:
Alexander, L., and Moore, M. (2012, December 12). Deontological ethics. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2015/entries/ethics-deontological/
Ditto, P. H. & Liu, H. (n.d.). Deontological dissonance and consequentialist crutch. Retrieved from http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/03-ditto.pdf
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
No comments:
Post a Comment