"Tragedy,
for me, is not a conflict between right and wrong, but between two different
kinds of right."
-Peter Shaffer
Well we are done with week 2 and I have to say I
am often more confused about ethics then I think before the class started. This
week we researched and discussed two theories, consequentialism and deontology.
While I find that most of what both theories had to offer was helpful, I think
that sometimes I wish understanding and applying ethics was as simple as just
pick a theory and run with it. I really have felt quite frustrated and so
confused in trying to make heads and tails of both of these theories. I don't
know if it's because I don't truly grasp both of the concepts or that I just
don't really entirely agree with either of them.
For example, consequentialist “…are
more concerned with the results of people’s choices…” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 863), their desire to
preserve control over what evil should be allowed and what evil should be
ignored is more relevant to our decision making process (LaFollette, 2007, p.
863). From a deontologist perspective, the thought and decision making process
centers around specific justifications surrounding pertinent issues at hand.
In both of the theories presented, we can see
that for some people valid arguments could be made for either side...in certain
situations or conditions. I personally struggled with the deontology theory; I
think because it seems entirely inflexible. Sometimes there is not an option in
life where you get to select the answer that is the purest of pure and brings
only sunshine and rainbows. As I mentioned in my research paper this week, if
we go back to the train problem we find that if there is truly no alternative
other than killing one child, killing one old man, or killing five children,
then deontology doesn't appear to be a feasible philosophy. Under deontology,
intentionally killing anyone and for any reason is deemed morally unfathomable.
Likewise, that would mean in a time of war or even in a situation requiring
self defense.
Not that we were asked to pick sides of which
theory we favor, but I think that the reality that I most likely live in, well
at least most of the time, requires that hard decisions often times do not have
a "perfect" answer or solution. When I think of it from a leadership
perspective, difficult decisions in many ways tend to leave an unhappy party or
dissatisfied person that feels you should have chosen or decided differently. I
would have to think that more times than not, consequentialism would deem more
appropriate in more situations. I would have to then favor this theories approach
due the fact that it allows for a more rational and realistic approach to
leadership decision making and accounts for more various challenges and
personal perspectives of all of those involved in the situation, rather than
favoring someone’s unwritten rule and subjective thinking that could tend to
cloud judgment.
I also like the idea that consequentialism
allows for different degrees of justification and flexibility in finding the
most right decision for the greatest amount of people involved in a situation.
I also appreciated that the theory or spirit of consequentialism allows for the
appearance of rational thinking. If we go back to the death penalty case study,
As I found in my research, the “…deontological obligation with respect to human
life is neither an obligation not to kill nor an obligation not to intend to
kill; rather, it is an obligation not to murder, that is, to kill in execution
of an intention to kill” (Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael, 2012) in which we
would then find that the death penalty under all circumstances could be argued
to be unethical. The death penalty in nature is the explicit killing of someone
with the intent to in fact kill them. Again, one must ask if this way of
thinking is entirely rational, can be applied in all situations, and does this
thinking actually make the world a better place for all of us (Alexander,
Larry; Moore, Michael, 2012).
Overall I think it was an incredible week of
discussions and provocative thinking; there doesn't appear to be a clear cut or
one size fits all magic potion that we can use in order to always follow
specific rules when making ethical decisions. I think that this semester will
continue to uncover many topics that will lend themselves to not displaying a
true always rule that can be applied in every situation. Leadership requires
flexibility and a very thorough decision making process. Just as each situation
presents unique challenges and will vary in opportunities, so will our
alternatives and reasoning behind the decisions that come about. Although the
theories tend to work more so in a quasi reality then in real life, neither
theory allows for a clear cut understanding or definition of what should or is
seems right or wrong.
Neither theory seems to outline what is morally
good or bad, nor does either give a list of ways in which we should weight each
decision or potential outcome or consequence. However, the foundation in
getting us to consider steps and analyze all relevant information as well as
all of the various and even remotely plausible implications is almost as
important as the decision we have to make.
Until we blog again!
References
Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael. (2012,
December 12). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from
plato.stanford.edu: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment