Utilitarianism Vs Deontological Ethics
Imagine you were a parent of a child, or a sunday school teacher, or just a form of authority and knowledge for a little child. It comes a time when the child starts to grow aware of the moral ethics that govern human lifestyle.
Upon learning of the different moral codes, the child comes upon the issue of truth and lies. If this child were to approach you about this, how then would you respond?
Two forms of thought can be derived from a situation such as this. One approach would be to tell the young child that lying is absolutely wrong, and that it is a sin. Of course this would be the most direct approach and after all, religion does teach us to be truthful in our deeds.
This path of thinking is what we know is deontological thought. In that, consequences don't matter, but what does matter is morality. Therefore, what the lie achieves does not matter, but the fact that a lie was said.
Another way you may address the issue is to state that lying is predominantly wrong, unless it is used for some greater purpose. If one was to lie in order to save many, then this would in turn be ok.
This form of utilitarianism creates the notion that the only thing that matters is the consequences, and if it took any means to achieve a greater purpose, then it should be sought after.
Although there is neither right nor wrong approach to this situation, both approaches must be observed even deeper.
Suppose one were to be a strong believer of deontological thought. This individual would be willing to turn in his own father if his father had stolen money to feed his starving family. To some this may be the right thing to do, to others, maybe not. But this would lead us to a discussion about what is law and what is universally right or wrong. I dont wish to get into that at the moment.
If an individual were to align his or herself with deontological thought, this person would be, simply put, a vigilante. This would be the type of person who would kill, steal, lie and cheat if he or she felt it would gain a greater consequence. For example, a leader who would start a war to prevent a war.
Which of these approaches we choose to govern our decisions about morality will affect the way we lead our lives. It is definitely something we should all consider before pouring onto others our own views of morality.
Many paradoxical questions pertain to the issue of ethics, and to be honest there really is no answer to these questions. Perhaps this is the beauty of it, perhaps it is a curse.
Upon learning of the different moral codes, the child comes upon the issue of truth and lies. If this child were to approach you about this, how then would you respond?
Two forms of thought can be derived from a situation such as this. One approach would be to tell the young child that lying is absolutely wrong, and that it is a sin. Of course this would be the most direct approach and after all, religion does teach us to be truthful in our deeds.
This path of thinking is what we know is deontological thought. In that, consequences don't matter, but what does matter is morality. Therefore, what the lie achieves does not matter, but the fact that a lie was said.
Another way you may address the issue is to state that lying is predominantly wrong, unless it is used for some greater purpose. If one was to lie in order to save many, then this would in turn be ok.
This form of utilitarianism creates the notion that the only thing that matters is the consequences, and if it took any means to achieve a greater purpose, then it should be sought after.
Although there is neither right nor wrong approach to this situation, both approaches must be observed even deeper.
Suppose one were to be a strong believer of deontological thought. This individual would be willing to turn in his own father if his father had stolen money to feed his starving family. To some this may be the right thing to do, to others, maybe not. But this would lead us to a discussion about what is law and what is universally right or wrong. I dont wish to get into that at the moment.
If an individual were to align his or herself with deontological thought, this person would be, simply put, a vigilante. This would be the type of person who would kill, steal, lie and cheat if he or she felt it would gain a greater consequence. For example, a leader who would start a war to prevent a war.
Which of these approaches we choose to govern our decisions about morality will affect the way we lead our lives. It is definitely something we should all consider before pouring onto others our own views of morality.
Many paradoxical questions pertain to the issue of ethics, and to be honest there really is no answer to these questions. Perhaps this is the beauty of it, perhaps it is a curse.
posted by LKC at 1:59 PM
2 Comments:
So how do you handle a said situation then? Both views (utilitarianism and deontology) are right and wrong to degress. But if you were pit in a scenario which forced you to act by either lying or telling the truth, how would you?
As for our kids, we probably wouldn't like them to lie, whatever the deed, since all outcomes of lying always leaves someone to the lacking end (be it the liar or the lied). I mean, all I've said is really ehtical relativsm in the end, but so is everything else.
hi john! (:
Post a Comment
<< Home