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
No comments:
Post a Comment