Their are two major theories that
can be used to help solve practical ethical issues, one that focuses on
consequences, Consequentialism, and one that focuses on rules and principals
which people should follow regardless of the outcome, Deontology. LaFollette (2007) stated, “these two types of
reasons are embodied in two categories of ethical theory that have shaped the
contemporary understanding of ethics” (p. 22).
The two theories are based on different ways of looking at solving a
problem, the difference between making a decision by looking at the end result
and making the “right” decision based on a set of rules or guidelines.
In the first theory,
Consequentialism, the focus in on the outcome, as LaFollette (2007) described
with the claim “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best
consequences” (p. 23). This theory does
make sense logically, as a large number of everyday decisions are made based on
the outcome they will produce. The area
where ethics can become difficult with this theory is whose interests are most
important, the person making the decision or that of the whole. In his description, LaFollette (2007) talked
about how a consequentialist must be able to explain “which consequences should
count, the weight we should give those that count, and how we should use these
considerations when deliberating” (p.25).
On the other side is deontology,
which Lafollette (2007) describes as “our moral obligations are defined by the
rules and are independent of consequences” (p. 24). This theory is based largely on a set of
rules about what people shouldn’t do in order to maintain morality, even if the
outcome is less than ideal. As
LaFollette stated, many choose to believe in deontology simply because they
believe that consequentialism is flawed.
Instead of looking at what could happen as an outcome, deontologists
look at which option most closely follows their set of moral rules.
I feel that both theories have
their place. When making decisions where
the only people affected are you, and possible your immediate friends and
family, then using a consequence based approach, such as consequentialism, may
be appropriate. This theory works on
decisions where there is no harm to the masses no matter the decision, such as
buying a new house or staying in the current one. In general, for most people this decision has
no effect on anyone outside a small circle of friends and family, therefore, if
can be looked at those the lens on consequentialism. These are the types of decisions I tend to
make on a regular basis, and I have based my decisions on what outcomes they
hold.
On the other side, when decisions
can effect others then outcomes may not be the best way to look at it, at least
not personal outcomes. For example, if
you had found a way to make yourself a large amount of money in a short time,
but it involves taking money for others who will never get it back would you do
it? If you look at this decision based
on the personal consequences then the idea of getting rich quick seems logical,
but what about the hardship of the others.
It would seem that the morally responsible decision here would be to not
become involved with the plan. In a
sense, the idea of deontology is about taking a step back and thinking about
how your decision will affect others, and whether you would be comfortable
having the decision you chose happen to you.
It reverts back the idea of the golden rule.
As a leader these theories play an
important role, if one was to only look at the consequences then they may make a
decision that is not morally sound. I
would like to think that as a leader I have the ability to step back and see
the options from the perspective of my followers. While there will be decisions in which the
outcome is the essential aspect, there will be other times where doing the
right thing is the most important.
LaFollette,
H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment