A634.2.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Theories of Ethics

I absolutely love to debate. To me, it is invigorating. I admit that I often like to play devil’s advocate and will argue against someone just for the sake of being argumentative. I have found that this serves two primary purposes. First, it helps both my “opponent” and me find a logical basis for our claims. Second, it is entertaining. This is especially true when it comes to political debates. I am an independent centerist so it is easy for me to argue politics with those both on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. One thing that I have found about my politically motivated friends, though, is that we can always seem to have logical (though often heated) discussions. When dealing with ethics, “we find that most people share enough moral beliefs to make rational discussion of particular ethical issues possible, even when they deeply disagree over them” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22).  

There are two primary theories about the moral foundation for our ethical decision-making process. “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” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22). Consequentialism, therefore, is results driven. Consider the example of how the KGB secured the release of three envoys in Beirut in 1986 (Houston Chronicle, 1986). When the envoys were kidnapped, instead of negotiating with the kidnappers, the KGB in turn kidnapped one of the relatives of one of the kidnappers, castrated him, shot him in the head, then send the removed body part to the kidnappers. By kidnapping, mutilating, and murdering an innocent family member, further atrocities were averted. Consequentialism could be described as the ends justifying the means. Deontology, on the other hand, could be described more as the principle of the matter. I remember several years ago I was visiting my sister in Charlotte, NC. I don’t recall the exact situation but I remember that we went somewhere to eat and I was overcharged a little for my food because they rang it up as something else but then corrected it to at least deliver my correct food. I started to raise a bit of a stink about it but the way that the company worked would have meant that a correction would have resulted in an employee being written up… over a few cents. I’ll tell you, though, I was a bit of a hot head and I was sticking to my guns. It was the principle of the thing! How DARE they overcharge me and not be willing to correct it? (Fortunately, my sister intervened and calmed me down. Also, I have learned how to pick and choose my battles a little more since then.)

Generally speaking, most people will align with one or the other of these theories. One is not better than the other. Like so many other things, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Let’s look first at consequentialists – those that look at the overall results. First, consequentialists must consider which effects count and to what extent (LaFollette, 2007). The other day, I received a piece of mail in my mailbox that was intended for the reciprocal penthouse in my sister tower. I had to consider all of the consequences when deciding what to do with that but some were a little less significant and carried less weight than others. Some considerations were – how long will it take me to walk the mail to the other building? How much wear and tear will I put on the elevator? Will my dog get mad at me while I am gone? Will I have to acknowledge the concierge that I don’t particularly care for? Does it even matter if they get this piece of mail? Etc. (Deontology would say that none of these consequences matter and I should deliver the mail even if it is junk mail because it is the right thing to do but more to follow on that.) Clearly some of these consequences carry weight and some are irrelevant. In this particular case, it was from the IRS and appeared to be a tax refund check so yes, I carried it over. I probably would not have done the same had it been something that looked a little less important but the problem with consequentialism is that we are all unique. Where do we draw the line on what is important and what isn’t? I may put more weight on one criteria than my neighbor does. Therefore, there cannot be a consistent set of criteria for what is an acceptable consequence and what is not. “Practical ethical decisions, even life-or-death ones, come down to a cost-benefit analysis of one kind or another. If the benefits outweigh the costs-if the utilitarian calculation "maximizes happiness," then the act in question is at least allowed, if not a positive duty” (Oderberg, 1998, p. 32). If one is using consequentialism to perform a cost-benefit analysis but the variables are inconsistent from case to case or person to person, this theory can never definitively generate the “right” ethical solution.

On the other hand, deontology – the principle of the matter theory, as I have come to know it – is also flawed. However, it may have some advantages over consequentialism. “One, it reflects the way most of us acquired and developed our moral beliefs; two, its main competitor is subject to seemingly serious criticisms” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31) as I just pointed out. But just because it relies on our already mostly commonly established moral compass, that doesn’t make it a perfect theory. I like watching science fiction shows and I think of these robots that have their built-in codes of conduct that prevent them from (or compel them to) certain decisions that a human would find easy. “Oh, sorry. Can’t push the button and save the planet because it would cause me to squish a bug and I can’t kill things.” (Obviously that is not an actual quote.) But deontology, fortunately, is not a foundation that just completely dismisses all consequential consideration. Those consequences still count, but how does one weigh the “rules” here? And more important, what do we do when moral “rules” conflict with one another? How do we make the ethical choice? There are really four primary strategies/approaches to this rule paradox (LaFollette, 2007). First, claim that the rules never truly conflict because there is only one primary rule – to do what is ethical. If there is only one rule, there can be no conflict. Another strategy is to evaluate the conflicting rules and assume that they (the rules) themselves will specify what to do in a conflict. A third strategy is to apply a meta-rule that explains what to do when rules conflict. Lastly, the final strategy just relies on intuition to make the proper ethical choice. Immanuel Kant (LaFollette, 2007), an 18^th century German philosopher, subscribes to the first rule here. He claimed that the only true rule was to act on good will. However, good will is often hypothetical. For example, what if I told you that it was good for you to call your parents at least twice a month? This sounds like sage advice. However, it assumes that you want to talk to your parents and have a relationship with them. This might not be the best case for everybody. Likewise, if someone says that it is good to practice the piano for 45 minutes every day, it is hypothetical based on the idea that I want to play the piano. I am a lyric baritone, though, so that is not proper for me. Kant argues, though, that morality is never hypothetical. Furthermore – and this is where it is a little confusing since he claimed that there is only one rule of good will – if it does appear that there is a conflict, “Kant believed that a person only had one operative duty at any given time, so when there is a conflict between two duties one duty must have a ‘stronger ground of obligation’ than the other” (White, 2009, p. 304). So the bottom line – Kant’s view of deontology is that we can only do one right thing at a time and, when there appears to be a conflict, we do the more important right thing.

Neither consequentialism nor deontology are perfect. Do we just look at the overall result and base our ethical decisions on that? If we did that, where do we draw the line? At what point do we say that serving the greater good is no longer worth it? Not to get political here but is seems that is one of the tenets of Communism which is a primarily failed concept. With deontology, at what point do we budge from our principles to serve the greater good? To me, the answer seems as easy as my political stance. The answer is not on either “side” but rather somewhere right in the middle.

KGB castrated leader's relative to win envoys' release - report: 3 STAR edition. (1986, January 7). Houston Chronicle (Pre-1997, Fulltext)

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

Oderberg, D. S. (1998). Academia's "doctor death?". The Human Life Review, 24(4), 31.

White, M. D. (2009). In Defense of Deontology and Kant: A Reply to Van Staveren. Review of Political Economy, 21(2), 299-307. doi:10.1080/09538250902834103