In Chapter two of LaFollette’s The Practice of Ethics, he discusses two ethical theories. These two theories are “commonly employed in every day discussion” and “have shaped the contemporary understanding of ethics” (LaFollette, 2007).
The first theory is consequentialism. This is the “claim that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). This theory “requires us to consider the interests of all affected” (LaFollette, 2007). However, not every consequence of every action has to be considered at the same weight under this theory. “That is why any adequate consequentialist theory must specify: (a) which consequences are morally relevant; (b) how much weight we should give them; and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning” (LaFollette, 2007).
John Stuart Mill is probably the most famous consequentialist, under the “dominant form of consequentialism – utilitarianism” (LaFollette, 2007). Mill believes that what counts the most when making a moral choice is happiness and it counts “to the degree that it increases or decreases happiness” (LaFollette, 2007). Simply, this form of consequentialism is focused on the “greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number” just as the theory as a whole is centered around making the best choice for all those affected (LaFollette, 2007).
Deontology is the second theory discussed by LaFollette. “Deontologist think rules or principles are important independent of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). The list of rules and principles often originally looked like a list of don’ts that most people grew up using as a moral belief system.
Immanuel Kant “employs the first (and least popular) strategy” of deontology (LaFollette, 2007). His theory focuses on goodwill or “doing one’s duty because it is one’s duty” (LaFollette, 2007). He believes that “if our actions are to have many moral worth, we must know how to identify our duty” and “we can do so only by examining “the principle of volition in accordance with which the action was done” (LaFollette, 2007).
In other words, deontology “holds that morality hinges on rules pertaining to specific rights and duties, and that the alignment of an action with these rights and duties determines its inherent rightness or wrongness” (Smillie, 2020).
For me, consequentialism seems rational, thoughtful and almost caring, in a way, because the self-interest and the interest of others has to be considered throughout the decision-making process. However, during my childhood, much of my learning about how to behave, what to do and how to be was based on rules and principles. Growing up in a Christian household, most of those rules and principles were based on Bible verses. To this day, my decisions, habits and beliefs can be tied back to lessons that I learned from my parents and my church. Some of these lessons are pillars in my life! Lessons about working hard, having a positive attitude, using your gifts to help others and even trying to avoid worrying (still working on this one..) all come from passages in the Bible.
Tyler Cook wrote an article titled Deontologist can be Moderate that encapsulates more accurately how I feel about deontology. It is “the view that deontological constraints can be permissibly violated when and only when doing so prevents the occurrence of sufficiently bad consequences” (Cook, 2018). For me, this feels more true. I believe that following the rules and principles is moral but I like to have the flexibility to know that the consequences should be considered.
Cook, T. (2018). Deontologists can be moderate. Journal of Value Inquiry, 52(2), 199-212. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10790-017-9608-7LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Smillie, L. (2020, October 06). Personality and moral judgment: Curious consequentialists and polite deontologists. Retrieved April 02, 2021, from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/doi/full/10.1111/jopy.12598
Comments
Post a Comment