This
course on ethics has opened my eyes up to exactly what it means to live life
according to certain morals and ethical values.
There were a few concepts that I never realized I used in everyday life
until I read about them in the text. The
three key lessons for me were; acting in certain ways based on the possible
outcomes vs. acting in certain ways regardless of the outcome, relativism, and the
differing amounts of obligations placed on certain individuals.
The
difference between consequentialism and deontology is all in the outcome. Consequentialism is about being morally
obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences, however,
deontology is about how our moral obligations are defined by the rules,
independent of the consequences (LaFollette, 2007). While it may make sense to act in ways that
produce the most desirable outcomes, does that mean those actions are always
the most ethical, not always? It would
seem that acting morally and ethically all the time regardless of the outcome
would be a better road to take.
Relativism
is a theory about how moral judgments are not objective in any important sense;
they are relative to the individual or culture.
Just as different cultures have different beliefs different families and
groups have different ways of seeing and doing things. This can make it difficult for people of a
different culture or even different upbringing to understand each other. This is where it is helpful to be sympathetic
and understanding to those around you.
It can often be difficult to see through these differences and move to a
place where discussions can occur.
The
idea that acting morally happens in a universal way is naïve at best. As LaFollette (2007) explained there are
certain reasons why differing levels of moral responsibility may be placed on
an individual, such as their age, lack of knowledge, or understanding. No one would expect a child to comprehend
that idea of morality, yet some feel that any and every adult should, even
those with limited mental abilities. The
same may hold true for physical capabilities also, there is a point where it
may be dangerous to a person to physically step in and help someone in
trouble. This does not excuse them
entirely; if they are capable of making a phone call then they are capable of
getting help. Unfortunately, too many
people have used the “unable to assist” card to simply do nothing, and that is
where things fall apart. In today’s
world, most people have a cell phone or access to one, so there are very few
excuses for why someone didn’t or shouldn’t help out.
While
I did value the ideas and theories in this class, I do wish it had touched more
on the business side of ethics. A good
portion of the text dealt with issues more suited for personal morals and
ethics, which are certainly pertinent, I would have like to have addressed the
ideas around acting morally in the workplace more. I believe that everyone has a need to improve
on his or her morals and ethics, as no one is perfect.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment