Consequentialism
vs Deontology
Is it a glass half-empty or a
glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology
is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain
which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give
those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when
deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to
consequentialism (Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201).
What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t
necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative
rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use
several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a
situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead
relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective.
Much like a game of keep away, we’re taught at an early age to stay away from
things, not to touch things, not to look at things, not to put ourselves in bad
situations and to remember the negative fate. Philosophers, political theorists,
and cognitive scientists have applied the traditional distinction between
deontology and consequentialism to determine ethical responsibilities (Milkoreit,
2015, p. 397). What I’ve found from primary research is that both consequentialism
and deontology elicit a response built through repetition. Consequentialism takes
its form from internal judgements predicated on how a person deliberates the
moral issue. These judgements are usually rooted in implicit bias, as each
person forms their own analysis of a situation from their experiences, deliberates
the issue and responds. Deontology is more straightforward and predictable due
to the nature of how each person developed their own thoughts about a
situation. The social norms created through deontology are generally acceptable
because it focuses on the repetitive negative rules I’ve already mentioned. We’ve
all heard these from adolescence to adulthood and each of us could probably
provide numerous examples.
How I lean – Consequentialism or Deontology?
Its difficult to know which way
I lean with these subjects, because I’m only now becoming familiar with them. I
understood the basics of both consequentialism and
deontology but didn’t know the internal framework or how they were constructed
prior to this point in my life. I enjoy aspects of both but would guess I’ve
tended to lean towards deontology. I feel that this makes my thinking a more
basic form, rather than intuitive or thoughtful. Deontology takes much of the
guesswork out of equation of know what is right or wrong. Deontology is a
careful reminder of my mother standing over and scolding me about something I
should not have done. Placing negative connotations on actions usually reminds
us more not to do that again. See the glass half-empty. If you’ve even been
caught shoplifting as a child, you’ll never forget the whooping, screaming or occasional
dust up with the law to remind you that you shouldn’t have done it.
However, I
feel like consequentialism plays a larger role in my life than I once thought. As
I approach certain situations, specifically those that have longer lasting
impacts like business decisions at work, financial decisions at home or picking
the right school for my children, it seems I lean away from deontology. Consequentialism
appears to be the more cognitive approach to weighing some consequences and
deontology has the quicker outcomes. But as we’ve heard from LaFollette, deontology
isn’t as simple as it seems. Obviously, any combination of decision making can
be weighted differently, and deontology is not excluded from this fact. The
problem is knowing which (moral rules) is weightier and by how much (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31). I still have a lot more to
learn, but it is exciting to see how these take shape in our lives.
References
Heinzelmann, N. (2018). Deontology
defended. Synthese, 195(12), 5197-5216. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s11229-018-1762-3
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. In The practice
of ethics (pp. 8-21). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
Milkoreit, M. (2015).
Hot deontology and cold consequentialism - an empirical exploration of ethical
reasoning among climate change negotiators. Climatic Change, 130(3), 397-409.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10584-014-1170-8
Comments
Post a Comment