Consequentialism vs Deontology

 

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