Hello, readers and welcome to week two of our exploration of ethics! This week we’re going to look at two theories of ethics, Consequentialism and Deontology. Neither is perfect, but understanding both is an essential element needed by students of ethics.
Consequentialism is aptly named because those that subscribe to it believe the consequences of any decision should act as the moral guide for that decision. When deciding what to do, the consequentialist attempts to act in the way that will lead to the most positive outcome. Consequentialists need to decide which consequences they will consider, how much consideration to give those consequences, and how those considerations will be used (LaFollette, 2007, p. 25).
One of the first difficulties that arises is who determines what the best outcome could be. Should the outcome benefit the most people? The person making the decision? Others? Without a way to determine who shall benefit, the consequentialist is always left with the possibility they can do more harm than good to someone whose perspective they had not considered. At the same time, a consequentialist doesn’t need to weigh every consequence. Only those of moral relevance need to be considered. That limits the number of consequences but doesn’t limit the people who might be impacted generating another bit of a dilemma for the consequentialist.
There is a philosophy known as Utilitarianism which is often referred to as a standard of Consequentialism. John Stuart Mill is the founder of the philosophy and he believed that the abiding consequence to consider is happiness. However, that is a very undeveloped definition of the philosophy. As noted by Elliott, Utilitarianism, “does not teach us to add up the people potentially helped by an action and subtract from that number the people potentially harmed, with the presumably ‘‘ethical’’ choice of having the majority win. Rather, Mill’s utilitarianism requires the far more difficult analysis of determining which action is most likely to produce the aggregate good—the overall good for the community as a whole, or for all of the people who can be identified as being affected by a particular action. In addition, through an application of the principles of justice, required prior to the use of any utilitarian calculus, Mill employs special protection for individuals who might otherwise be sacrificed for the good of the whole” (2007, pg. 1). I wanted to add this information for you because people who do not believe consequentialism is a valid basis for ethical decision making will attempt to simplify the philosophy to make it easier to discredit.
As LaFollette wrote in our class text, “deontologists claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rules, partly independent of consequences” (2007, p. 24). The basic premise is that our rules are derived from our morals and they should serve as our guide, even when they may lead to decisions that have consequences that are less than positive for the majority. Do we tell a friend they look horrid in an outfit when they ask? Deontologists would say we should because morals say we shouldn’t lie. The dilemma faced by deontologists is determining which rules are applicable. What group’s needs get met? A situation like that of the use of fetal tissue for medical research has multiple groups bringing their moral rules to the discussion and the deontological processes struggle.
Students and teachers of ethics have attempted to find a mixture of the two philosophies that may work in more situations. An interesting part of these efforts has led to discussions on the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing (Cleary, 2013, p.4). The doctrine involves whether one is more to blame for committing an act that causes harm or from not acting to prevent someone to come to harm. LaFollette noted that consequentialists tend to think that doing is fundamentally more important than allowing because it is the results of people’s choices they focus upon (2007, p. 52). Lafollette also stated that Deontologists believe both the doing and acting are morally relevant (2007, p. 53). LaFollette further added, “Most deontologists not only think the doing/allowing distinction is morally relevant, they think it marks a crucial moral divide such that doings are sometimes categorically worse, and standardly much worse, than allowings” (2007, p. 53).
How does this all apply to me? The reading I have done about the two philosophies has helped me to understand the basic foundations of ethics. I have been a champion of recruiting multiple perspectives to the table when facing decisions of measurable impact to others. The Consequentialism and Deontology illuminate the importance of understanding the morals and perspectives of those our decisions may impact. That cannot be done without interacting, continuous learning, and relationship building. Ethics and ethical decision making are incredibly complex environs in which we, as leaders, will regularly operate. We will continue to learn more through this course and through applying what we learn in both our work and home lives.
Cleary, C. A. (2013). The Blame Game: An Axiological Approach to the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. Kent State University. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1385376307
Elliott, D. (2007). Getting Mill Right (Vol. 22, pp. 100-112): Taylor & Francis Ltd.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
