MSLD 634 Module 2 - Theories of Ethics

 Theories of Ethics

There are two main theories behind the definition and understanding of ethics: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequence, requiring the consideration of the interests of all affected. On the other hand, the deontologist approach states that we should act by moral rules and rights, partly independently of consequences (LaFollette, 2007).

I tend to lean more toward consequentialism, but often I catch myself as a deontologist. LaFollette (2007) highlights one point that explain why this happens to me. I get offended if someone lies or hide anything from me, even if I know that it produces a significant benefit for me or others. The movie Consumed by Daryl Wein (2015) is an illustration of this dilemma. Although I know that the mass production of food is indirectly helping fighting hunger around the globe, (which is often neglected as hunger is a not a reality for most of the countries in today’s society) I disagree with the negative impacts and side effects of mass production of food items. This example illustrates how deontologist and consequentialist I am. Genetically modifying an organism (GMO) for me is wrong by itself, independent of the positive consequences (fighting hunger, creating jobs, moving the economy), however when I analyze the consequences explicitly shown in the movie, I bend to consequentialism and consider GMO a clear unethical behavior. Although I have the same opinion regarding this subject, it is based on different foundations.

I believe these two theories have their pos and cons. The deontology approach is easier to understand and to explain, therefore, to find a common ground on the decision making process of one’s action, while the consequentialism cover a broader perspective, taking in consideration more variables and possibilities in the “equation” of ethics. An important aspect which I strongly believe is that one cannot limit himself on theories, approaches, tales or whatever names we want to call. I defend the idea that meaningful and respectful dialogue can accept all theories, although the decision possibly will bend to one of the sides. Facts, when making decision, should be the foundation of an ethical decision, independent of morality (Tiatorio, n.d.), feelings, laws and societal bias (Velasquez et al, 2010). Gathering facts and spending time and energy on finding a common ground (internally if the decision is only upon you, or externally if it directly depends on others) should be an issue worth talking about.

As William Ury (2017) says “we tend to see conflict as two-sided, and we frequently fail to see there is always a third side.” We should not be limited by a tale of two theories, but what we can positively learn from and act upon both. In my opinion, looking for the right or most appropriate theory deviates us from what really matters when it comes to ethics.

References

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Tiatorio (n.d.). Intro. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsineducation.com/intro.htm.

Ury, W. (2017, February 7). There are three sides to every argument. Retrieved from https://ideas.ted.com/there-are-three-sides-to-every-argument/

Velasquez et al (2010). What is Ethics? Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics.

Wein, D. (2015). Consumed. United States of America: Mister Lister Films

MSLD 634 Module 1 - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

When someone asks us why we made a decision or why we support some position, we offer, or should be prepared to offer, reasons for our actions, decisions, or conclusions. To make better choices, we must become aware of our options and the relevant background information; we should identify the consequences of our actions for others, for ourselves, and for the people we will become. (LaFollette, 2007).

Better choices do not mean good ones. In fact, sometimes no choice is the best choice we can have. The Trains Dilemma exemplifies this statement:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.

1.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

2.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a sidetrack where one child is standing. The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

3.      You are outside the train, 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?

Asked what I would do in each scenario could lead to an unrealistic answer, as my decision would not be rational. The dilemma implies that stopping the train was not a possibility, which made me assume that I would lack time to think about alternatives and the consequences. I would be led probably by emotions or impulse.

On the first scenario, probably I would thrown the switch as a reflection. The presumed immediate consequence is that I would kill the one child on the side. In a long-term perspective, I would feel devasted for killing one child, and guilty for killing the one who was playing on the supposed safe place. But the fact I saved five could bring me comfort.

On the second scenario, I probably would just close my eyes, because emotion would overcome impulse. The consequence is that I would feel devasted, but I am not sure I would feel guilty. My child was not on the way of the train, not playing on an unsafe place, and I don’t believe the number of kids would make me feel guilt, although I don’t think I could ever recover from the consequences of my inaction.

On the third scenario, I could behave by impulse or emotion. With no time enough to think I don’t believe I would see the old man and per his age and the fact he had a long life comparing with the promising future of the kids, but by the fact I would hit a fragile person. The fragility could hit my emotions, but the reflection could kick in first.

What is not stated or clear also need to be taken in consideration when we think about the consequences of our decisions. In the scenarios perhaps wouldn’t make a difference on the decision itself, but in a situation not under pressure, going around the circle (Nosich, 2012) of critical thinking could impact greatly on the consequences.

For instance, I don’t know if the five kids by looking at the train coming would jump to one of the sides and coincidently be the same side the train ended up. Or perhaps the kid on the side would run far away when looking at the train? What about the kid on the side jumping by impulse on the trail in an act of bravery? If I was outside close to the old man, I had the alternative to jump in front of the train instead of pushing the old man. If I was the switch person I would need to take in consideration what would happen with the train, and the possible passengers, if I decided to throw the switch bottom. Could I cause an even worse accident? There are several variables which is hidden behind the scenarios and proportionally a bunch of unknow consequences. There could be countless implications.

The main learning outcome from this dilemma for me is timing. As LaFollete (2007) says, if we are not under pressure to make potentially momentous decision, we will be better equipped to make good decisions when we must act.

References

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing