A634.2.4.RB_MaceRoyce
In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.
Firstly, the definitions of consequentialism and deontology must be identified. Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of consequences (Haynes, n.d.). Consequences are the focus of consequentialism, but there are no clearly defined "good" consequences. Because of this, my personal thoughts about consequentialism are that its definition and meaning are too ambiguous (in most cases).
While I understand the intent of consequentialism in simple terms, i.e. it promotes the "right" consequences, it still does not clarify what is "right" from a morality standpoint. Right to who? You? Me? The Neo-Nazi Party? Perhaps the Branch Davidians? As one can see, the "right" consequences can easily be open for interpretation as each of the aforementioned individuals or groups can claim any number of consequences as "right". As a result, consequentialism and its ambiguous nature does not feel like a solid ethical frame or theory-by itself anyway.
Alternatively, we look at the definition of deontology which is essentially the study of duty. My personal thoughts on deontology are that it attempts to more clearly define what is morally good. According to Alexander and Moore (2016), deontological morality avoids the overly demanding and alienating aspects of consequentialism and accords more with conventional notions of our moral duties. It seeks to simplify ethics, but at the same time creates a "rigid" approach to ethical thought and application. There is less flexibility with deontology and it is paradoxical in nature (Alexander & Moore, 2016).
In conclusion, I would like to see a linear application of either ethical theory depending on the scenario at hand. This would include the ability of the individual applying either theory (consequential or deontology) to fully understand the unique characteristics of each theory and apply it as appropriately as possible. This may sound like a tall order, but with the willingness to learn and see the benefits of both applications, one could theoretically make more perfect ethical decision inflicting the least amount of pain, suffering, or hurting. LaFollette (2007) provides an in-depth review of both ideologies and proves to be a good starting point for one to learn how both theories can help address ethical issues in almost any situation.
References
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoRelConRec
Haynes, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Firstly, the definitions of consequentialism and deontology must be identified. Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of consequences (Haynes, n.d.). Consequences are the focus of consequentialism, but there are no clearly defined "good" consequences. Because of this, my personal thoughts about consequentialism are that its definition and meaning are too ambiguous (in most cases).
While I understand the intent of consequentialism in simple terms, i.e. it promotes the "right" consequences, it still does not clarify what is "right" from a morality standpoint. Right to who? You? Me? The Neo-Nazi Party? Perhaps the Branch Davidians? As one can see, the "right" consequences can easily be open for interpretation as each of the aforementioned individuals or groups can claim any number of consequences as "right". As a result, consequentialism and its ambiguous nature does not feel like a solid ethical frame or theory-by itself anyway.
Alternatively, we look at the definition of deontology which is essentially the study of duty. My personal thoughts on deontology are that it attempts to more clearly define what is morally good. According to Alexander and Moore (2016), deontological morality avoids the overly demanding and alienating aspects of consequentialism and accords more with conventional notions of our moral duties. It seeks to simplify ethics, but at the same time creates a "rigid" approach to ethical thought and application. There is less flexibility with deontology and it is paradoxical in nature (Alexander & Moore, 2016).
In conclusion, I would like to see a linear application of either ethical theory depending on the scenario at hand. This would include the ability of the individual applying either theory (consequential or deontology) to fully understand the unique characteristics of each theory and apply it as appropriately as possible. This may sound like a tall order, but with the willingness to learn and see the benefits of both applications, one could theoretically make more perfect ethical decision inflicting the least amount of pain, suffering, or hurting. LaFollette (2007) provides an in-depth review of both ideologies and proves to be a good starting point for one to learn how both theories can help address ethical issues in almost any situation.
References
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoRelConRec
Haynes, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Comments
Post a Comment