A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.

Consequentialists claim as cited by LaFollette (2009) “that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p.23). He continues that in seeking a decent act,
“consider available actions" and "trace the likely consequences of each for all affected". The ends justify the means in consequentialism, no matter how gory the process may be. War, for instance, in the eye of a consequentialist, may or may not be moral. The reasoning for involvement is key. Where a consequentialist may say that the United States involvement in WWII was in response to millions being slaughtered in Nazi camps, one may note that the Civil War was fought on one end to keep slavery in existence. Havel (1995) takes a more
deontologist approach to the subject:

Given its fatal incorrigibility, humanity probably will have to go through many more Rwandas and Chernobyls before it understands how unbelievably shortsighted a human being can be who has forgotten that he is not God.

Deontology theory is 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). Deontology is rule or duty-based ethics. There are acts that are right, and there are acts that are wrong, and there is no middle ground or special circumstance in which the act may shift. Therefore, a deontologist believes that lying, stealing and murder are wrong; however, they do not consider whether the truth hurts people. Whereas a utilitarian would say that the consequence is the best way in determining the good or evil within an act, if either the motive, means or result is wrong, everything is immoral about the act from the deontologist eye. How does one get at a moral act?

Kant doubted if eternal truths (natural law) were real in and of themselves, since they are always drawn through a biased foci. He believed we could only act in ways we believed to be in line with universal law. Categorical imperative, or a (self-defined) necessary determination, is a user-friendly way of determining right or wrong. All moral judgements are rationally supported.

There are three maxims within the categorical imperative (O'Neill, 1990):
All actions must have universality, which means that an action is only moral if you believe that it would be right to do if everyone did it all of the time. For instance, if you believe that murder is wrong (an example in line with eternal truths), then all war is wrong, and even killing a murderer is wrong.
Every human must be treated as an end, not a means to an end. Manipulation of people and lives is wrong. Whereas consequentialism states that the greater good trumps the individual,
deontology states that every person's individual welfare matters and that people cannot use others to achieve their own selfish goals. the emphasis is on respect for each person and their moral rights.
Individuals should act as moral authorities for others. We are always responsible for alerting others of their immorality and should thwart their plan to commit evil acts.

The holes in Kant's argument lie within cultural relativity: How can we know whether our perceptions are correct? What justification/reasons do we have for a belief? Kant's law are set to be utilized by those who deem themselves to be moral authorities and who will, though their own selfishness and egocentrism, will take it upon themselves to punish those who are inherently immoral by their ruler. This was the justification of slavery; John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually" (Independence Hall Association, n/d).

Velasquez et al states (2011):

Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

In situations where the overall dilemma is not life threatening or incredibly crucial to the overall duties and responsibilities of the populace, I find that consequentialism can be beneficial; “right” or “wrong” are relative based on upbringing, which is what makes deontology flawed. One should always consider how those around them will be affected, before trying to decide what natural law solidifies.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.

Independence Hall Association. (n/d). The Southern Argument for Slavery. Accessed at http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

Havel, Vdclav. (1995). Forgetting That We Are Not God, 51 FIRST THINGS 47, 49-50. Accessed at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9503/articles/havel.html 

O'Neill, Onora. (1990). Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Velasquez, M., Claire, A., Shanks, T., S.J., Meyer, M.J. (2010). What is ethics? Accessed at https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

MSLD 634 - 1.4.CM: The Train Dilemma

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.

Will you throw the switch?

I would not throw the switch. A switchperson attends the switch in a railroad yard, switching trains from one track to another. It is safe to assume that all of the children standing on the track are not tied down and are standing on the track of their own volition. If so, I would have been present to see this occur and would have access to radio to alert the engineer and conductor to stop the train. However, the situation assumes that the children are on the tracks right before my role as a switchperson would come into play. I am going to do my due diligence to yell or use a loudspeaker to alert them of their folly, but my job will not be changed by their actions. If they are in the way of a moving train, the same logic (or lack thereof) they used to stand on the track should be used to sense impending danger and urge them to swiftly relocate. Perhaps the five children are anticipating the train and have strategically placed themselves there. The child on the other track must have chosen to stand on the track where the train is unexpected, knowing he or she would not be impacted by the train coming. I do not believe I should change the fate of such expectation. To allow fate to occur results in not being a murder.

Same scenario except:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the

train and all the children will be saved.

Will you push him?

I would not push the elderly man. Once again, the man has not placed himself in the line of danger, and it would be criminal to kill him. Once again, to allow fate to occur results in not being a murder. However, the children, no matter immature their decision, have placed themselves in the line of danger. I do not feel any responsibility to save them from their poor decision, particularly if it means risking another life to do so. However, if one would be so inclined to save the children, why not fling themselves into the track?

Same scenario except:

The one child on the side track is your child.

Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I would not save the five children. It is not about the quantity of life, but the quality. One who would stand on the tracks where an active train occasionally passes is already taking a mighty risk of being electrocuted or hit by the train. 

In reflection of all of the situations, I would perhaps had different answers if those on the tracks were tied down. However, it also depends on what I know or can perceive to know about the persons. Perhaps if the five were tied down, and the lone person was jumping up and down, excited for the coming of the train, I would choose to divert due to the freewill of the one versus the entrapment of the five. However, in a situation where all six were tied down and the five were dressed as neo-Nazis or KKK members, I would spare the life of the lone person without the apparent terrorist affiliation! However, as the stories stand, There are several internal questions that aided in my decision-making.

• Who can say that saving these children once will not result in them returning to the tracks once again? 
• Who is to say they have not already been saved and have not learned their lesson? 
• How many elderly men and lone children must have their existences questioned before this child collective meets their fate?

References

Anderson, Thomas. (n/d). Case Western Reserve University. Accessed at https://erau.instructure.com/courses/32985/files/4883974/download?wrap=1.