What is more important to you... following the rules, or knowing why we follow the rules?
Contemporary ethical decision-making can be defined by two theories of reason. Consequentialism, which is choosing to act based on the best possible outcomes. Deontology, which is acting based on ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and these rules or rights are somewhat independent of their consequences.
Consequentialism requires that we think of the consequences of our actions, before we act. This sounds like a great concept to make sound decisions. However, when talking about making moral and ethical decisions, if we only look at the end results and make decisions that represent the greater good we may make immoral decisions as a result. In other words, the ends may not always justify the means.
For example, let's use the CIA's torture techniques to acquire intelligence from a known "bad guy". Let's assume this intelligence, gained by excruciating measures, saved thousands of lives and thwarted a major terroristis attack on innocent civilians. We might be inclined to say the ends justified the means.
But, is torture ever considered morally right? Is causing harm to another allowable, even if the results are for the greater good? What are the consequences of torturing enemy combatants?
Here is another example... suppose the intelligence directed us to a mosque that was being used as a bomb-making factory. We knew that all the "bad people" were going to building some bombs at a certain time of the day, and devised a plan to drop a bomb of our own on the mosque to kill the evil doers. However, as our bombing run was commencing we noticed a group of children playing in the courtyard of the Mosque. Killing innocent children is completely immoral, wrong, and otherwise a huge no-no... so we cancel the mission in accordance with our moral duty to protect innocent lives. The bomb-makers live, create some powerful explosives, and kill a lot of people.
The deontologist believes that it is morally wrong to kill innocent people, and acts accordingly. The consequentialist weighs out the options and may consider to drop the bomb (committing and immoral act) because the end result saves more innocent lives. So which is right?
I think it is important to fully know both theories, and apply the best judgement based on our human duties as well as taking into consideration the consequences of our actions. Now, both situations above are under the context of war. Does the context make a difference in making ethical decisions? I believe so.
Immanuel Kant believes all humans should be treated as the end, and not mearly the means to an end (Shakil, n.d.). There are certain natural laws we are bound as humans to uphold. We have a duty to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also need to develop our understanding of the why's. Why is murder wrong? Why is stealing wrong? Knowing the why's will help us gain a better understanding of our duty. We must act ethically because there are inalienable rights in life, and we should choose to behave morally to avoid potentially negative outcomes.
Subscribing to both deontology and consequentialism allows us to perform our duties as a society AND develop our virtues and character as individuals.
JP
Shakil, A. (n.d.). Kantian duty based (deontological) ethics. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from Seven Pillars Institute: http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics
Contemporary ethical decision-making can be defined by two theories of reason. Consequentialism, which is choosing to act based on the best possible outcomes. Deontology, which is acting based on ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and these rules or rights are somewhat independent of their consequences.
Consequentialism requires that we think of the consequences of our actions, before we act. This sounds like a great concept to make sound decisions. However, when talking about making moral and ethical decisions, if we only look at the end results and make decisions that represent the greater good we may make immoral decisions as a result. In other words, the ends may not always justify the means.
For example, let's use the CIA's torture techniques to acquire intelligence from a known "bad guy". Let's assume this intelligence, gained by excruciating measures, saved thousands of lives and thwarted a major terroristis attack on innocent civilians. We might be inclined to say the ends justified the means.
But, is torture ever considered morally right? Is causing harm to another allowable, even if the results are for the greater good? What are the consequences of torturing enemy combatants?
Here is another example... suppose the intelligence directed us to a mosque that was being used as a bomb-making factory. We knew that all the "bad people" were going to building some bombs at a certain time of the day, and devised a plan to drop a bomb of our own on the mosque to kill the evil doers. However, as our bombing run was commencing we noticed a group of children playing in the courtyard of the Mosque. Killing innocent children is completely immoral, wrong, and otherwise a huge no-no... so we cancel the mission in accordance with our moral duty to protect innocent lives. The bomb-makers live, create some powerful explosives, and kill a lot of people.
The deontologist believes that it is morally wrong to kill innocent people, and acts accordingly. The consequentialist weighs out the options and may consider to drop the bomb (committing and immoral act) because the end result saves more innocent lives. So which is right?
I think it is important to fully know both theories, and apply the best judgement based on our human duties as well as taking into consideration the consequences of our actions. Now, both situations above are under the context of war. Does the context make a difference in making ethical decisions? I believe so.
Immanuel Kant believes all humans should be treated as the end, and not mearly the means to an end (Shakil, n.d.). There are certain natural laws we are bound as humans to uphold. We have a duty to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also need to develop our understanding of the why's. Why is murder wrong? Why is stealing wrong? Knowing the why's will help us gain a better understanding of our duty. We must act ethically because there are inalienable rights in life, and we should choose to behave morally to avoid potentially negative outcomes.
Subscribing to both deontology and consequentialism allows us to perform our duties as a society AND develop our virtues and character as individuals.
JP
Shakil, A. (n.d.). Kantian duty based (deontological) ethics. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from Seven Pillars Institute: http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics
No comments:
Post a Comment