A634.2.4.Theories of Ethics- Trey McNeil

I recently began my second ethics class and my first in nearly fifteen years. My first ethics class was a business ethics class I took as an undergraduate student and, to be honest, I do not remember many of the concepts. Before I began this class, I would have told you I live my life in a manner that would be considered ethical.  Though I am only in week two of the current ethics class, I am already sure of one thing, what I consider ethical seems to change according to the situation. LaFollette (2007) introduced two major theories regarding ethics, Consequentialism and Deontology. I have been made aware that I switch back and forth between the concepts like a person at a buffet, picking what I feel would be best at that particular time and not sticking to one thing in general. As I reflect on my failure to be constant in the theories, I realized that I am okay with not sticking to one idea because both theories contain great ideas and flaws. I will now examine each concept in more detail.

According to LaFollette (2007), Consequentialism consists of making decisions based on the best overall consequences. A consequentialist does not make ethical decisions based on the ethical principles instilled in us throughout life. They believe that the moral decision is the one that produces the best overall consequence. LaFollette (2007) stated that there were three factors that all consequentialist must consider including which consequences are available, how much does each consequence count, and how do they count?

 This concept makes sense in theory. An individual may not want to tell their wife that they do not like her beef stroganoff or a friend may not want to tell another friend that they do not like their play they have tirelessly worked to write. I see Consequentialism as limiting the damage. It is okay to tell a lie in these situations because hurting their feelings is worse than telling them the truth.  I recently watched a show called No Tomorrow and in one episode the lead actress was accidently given an extra scone. When she tried to return the scone, she was rewarded with two free scones for her honesty. Throughout the rest of the episode, she referred to the scone as her honesty scone. She mentioned the scone several times while divulging the truth to her boss and coworkers and was rewarded with positive results. But, when she told her boyfriend the truth during a challenging scenario, it blew up in her face. Consequentialists chose to avoid the truth in certain scenarios for this exact reason.

But, can Consequentialism actually produce unethical results? Take Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon for example. I would have to say that they believe in Consequentialism. Their goal is to catch the criminals no matter what happens while they are trying to catch them. If they are successful in the end then the ends will justify the means. But what happens when they are unsuccessful in their pursuit? In one scene they pretty much destroy multiple city blocks while in pursuit of the bad guys but the bad guys get away in the end. Since they were not successful in their mission are they now unethical? Are they now just a couple of buffoons that destroyed the city? Would it be considered ethical to commit multiple acts of property damage if they would have caught the bad guys? Consequentialists believe it would be okay.

Another flaw with Consequentialism, at least according to deontologists, is that if individuals strictly act according to what would produce the best consequence then at some point they will, in fact, begin to act unethical (LaFollette, 2007). Deontologists also believe if consequentialists do act in a way that is ethical, then they are doing it for the wrong reason. For example, consequentialists may believe that you should not walk up to someone on the street and punch them because you will hurt them, where deontologists believe you should not commit the same action because it fundamentally goes against ethical principles. So, how do Deontologists decide what is ethically correct? 

Deontologists believe that there are principles and guidelines that must be followed in each situation.  Immanuel Kant stated that an individual should “do the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do” (BBC, n.d, para. 47). They are not worried about the end result or consequence but are focused on doing the right thing for the right reason. Let us revisit the example about lying to my friend about the play he has worked so hard to write. A deontologist would believe that the friend should be told the truth even if it caused them emotional pain because it is the ethical thing to do. It is unfortunate that telling the truth will cause harm, but we cannot disgrace the moral principles. Let us look at another example involving a pool party. Say an individual is at a pool party and witnessed someone drowning. This individual is not a lifeguard and does not know how to perform CPR, but must do something in this situation in an attempt to save the person’s life. The individual attempts faulty CPR that results in saving the life but also breaking several ribs. The deontologist would believe that the broken ribs were an unfortunate occurrence, but the ethical choice was made. Jumping in to save the individual was ethical because it was the right thing to do.

Deontology also has some flaws. According to LaFollette (2007), most people believe that consequences do hold some sort of moral weight in making ethical decisions. So, Consequentialists believe that decisions made solely on principles could also lead to unethical decisions.

According to LaFollette (2007), our main goal in any ethical decision is to think about what we do and why we do it.  Consequentialists and Deontologist will most likely never see eye to eye about why a decision is ethical. They may agree that an action is ethical or unethical, but their reasoning will more than likely be divergent. Though we may never agree, we as individuals should always think about how our actions could affect others. I understand now that is why I have a tendency to flip and flop between the two rules of thought. Can my lack of consistency be overlooked by my attempt to treat others fairly while sticking to my principles? Once again, that depends on who you ask.

References

BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Duty-based ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml

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

A634.1.5.The Train Dilemma- Trey McNeil

As we grow up, we are more than likely taught that the moral or ethical way to act is by doing the right thing. Do not gossip. Do not tell lies. Do not intentionally do things to harm other individuals. The moral blueprint is laid out throughout our entire lives. But, what do we do when the moral cheat sheet does not provide a definitive answer? How will we act in an ethical dilemma where there seems to be no good answer? LaFollette (2007) stated that most of us consider the consequences of our actions morally significant. What if the consequences of the action result in negative consequences no matter what you decide to do? I am reminded of the movie The Good Son where the mother can only save one child at the end. She must decide who to save and who to let fall off of a cliff. That is a tough decision and one that none of us hope we ever have to make.

I recently came across three ethical dilemmas involving a train tragedy. In the first scenario, you are the switchboard operator and a train is heading toward five children on the tracks. The five children can be saved if you throw the switch and send the train toward a lone child standing on the tracks. In the next scenario, the five kids can be saved by pushing an elderly man onto the tracks to stop the train. In the final scenario, the lone kid on the tracks is your own. What would you do in these scenarios? What is moral or ethical? What is the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do? I will discuss how I believe I would act in the three scenarios.

The most difficult issue with these scenarios is determining how I would respond ethically without allowing emotions to get in the way. I believe I would respond differently in terms of emotions versus ethics. LaFollette (2007) mentioned that some individuals make ethical decisions based on principles. They stick to what they believe no matter the consequences. This line of thinking did not do me much good because I do not have a moral compass to delineate between taking five lives or throwing the switch to only take one life. Krueger (2008) discussed several ethical theories regarding how to determine which option to choose in an ethical dilemma, though none of them helped in this scenario.  The Situational theory states that a decision is moral or ethical if it creates the greatest amount of love (Krueger, 2008). This seems to be a solid theory but did not offer much guidance in this particular scenario. This decision must be made in a way to eliminate the most damage.

In the first scenario, I would throw the switch and sacrifice the one child to save the five. This decision was made based on weighing the consequences. I considered that either way there will be an accident. On one track five children have fallen or made their way onto the track and one child has fallen on the other track. In my opinion, I am morally obligated to throw the switch and minimize the damage. Though the consequence is grim no matter what I choose to do, my inner consequentialist says that throwing the switch will result in the best consequence.

The second scenario with the older gentleman initiated a different line of thinking. I did not approach this scenario solely in terms of consequences. A consequentialist would most likely agree that saving the five kids no matter the situation would be the most ethically sound decision.  This decision was harder to reach than the decision in the first scenario. After much deliberation, I decided that I would not push the old man onto the tracks to save the children. I know some would say that he is an older gentleman and has been able to live his life where the children have not. I see that and definitely understand the argument.  But, in my mind, the children getting hit by the train would be a horrible accident, but me pushing a man onto the tracks, even if I am trying to save five children, is murder. And, to me, murder is less ethical than the positive consequences of saving five children. 

LaFollete (2007) described that deontologists believe that moral rules should be followed no matter the consequences. Another theory that assisted with my decision is this scenario is the Golden Rule. According to Krueger (2008), the Golden Rule establishes that an act is ethical if you treat others the way you would like to be treated. I understand that not everyone would choose to sacrifice themselves for five children. If I had the opportunity to jump on the tracks to save the children then my response may be different. But, I do know that I find it unethical to play God and decide to end this man’s life to stop an accident.

The final scenario was the hardest to determine what to do. I do not have any children, but I do have nieces, so I pictured them in this scenario. My initial thought was that the ethical thing to do would be to sacrifice them to save the other children. I determined in the first scenario that the moral and ethical decision would be to save the five children by flipping the switch. I know the right answer should be to flip the switch, but then both emotion and thought began to set in. I began to weigh the ethical responsibility I have to raise my child against the ethical responsibility I have to society by saving the other five children, therefore, creating the best consequence. I realized in this situation that I would more than likely not do what I considered morally sound in the first scenario. I would sacrifice the five children in order to save my child, nieces, or even my friend’s children. It is very difficult to picture the final scenario without letting emotion overpower what we thing is right or wrong, and I believe the majority of us would save our own child over the strangers in this scenario.

This exercise taught me that what we consider moral or ethical will change based on the situation or scenario. In the first scenario, I was willing to risk one life to save five, but the final two scenarios had an opposite result. LaFollette (2007) stated, “Although most of us abstractly recognize the importance of consistency, many of us fail to be consistent in the concrete” (p. 17). These three different ethical dilemmas proved that I am subject to ethical inconsistency in various scenarios.

References

Krueger, G., & Krueger, M. (2008). 3 Steps to solve an ethical dilemma. Retrieved from http://biggsuccess.com/bigg-articles/3-steps-to-solve-an-ethical-dilemma/

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