A634.2.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In Chapter 2 of Hugh LaFollette's The Practice of Ethics, readers are presented with a detailed discussion of consequentialism and deontology, two categories of ethical theory which discuss two common styles of reasoning through which people will reach a decision on how to act when presented with an issue of ethics. To briefly summarize, consequentialism emphasizes selecting an available course of action which will yield the best overall consequences. Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes acting in accordance with moral rules or rights which can in some part be considered independently of the end results (LaFollette, 2007).

To expound somewhat further, LaFollette wrote that consequentialism requires consideration of several aspects of the end results. This can include figuring out which consequences of a given action count, and a weight of importance may need to be assigned to the factors that are of interest as part of the results of a given action. There is also the need to consider how to best measure the effect of the end result. By the dominant form of consequentialism, the theory of utilitarianism, one should look towards achieving the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. Of course, with this theory comes the concern of its application, particularly in potentially considering consequences too narrowly. LaFollette uses the example of a proposed “survival lottery” scenario that would randomly select healthy individuals to be harvested for organs to help multiple sick people, provided the process was formalized, public, and democratically supported (LaFollette, 2011). The point, however, is that an individual making a decision through the lens of consequentialism and may not necessarily be considering the ethical implications of, say, actions on one individual that would benefit multiple people as in the survival lottery scenario, or simply not considering the fullest scope of potential impacts through either negligence of long term effects or secondary effects.

Deontology has the benefits, according to LaFollette, of better reflecting how most people learn and develop moral beliefs, and it doesn't receive as much critical review as consequentialism. Deontology looks more towards rules individuals were raised with, and uses these rules as guidelines for action more so than examining the potential consequences of a given action. For a lot of people, this may seem more like simply following the rules and may not present itself with as many potential sticking points as consequentialism. LaFollette writes, however, there are issues with deontology as well. As most people think consequences count for something, deontologists must either give appropriate weight to consequences or show they really don’t matter. Furthermore, there can be complications as basic “approximations” of more complex rules eventually give way to complex circumstances, such as the initial rule of “never lying” eventually including “complex factors” later on. Possible conflicts between rules may have to be dealt with if they arise. This system, as well, is not perfect.

For me, I would hesitate to say that either theory is superior to the other, and both of them have something to offer in the way of providing inputs for a critical analysis of an issue. Consequentialism provides a system of thought towards analyzing possible choices, similar to a Courses of Action comparison in the military, while deontology provides some guidance towards a choice, similar to best practices and regulations in the military. In decision making processes, we are often asked to analyze a problem, and from there develop several courses of action to choose from. Each course is analyzed in the context of desired variables such as costs, impact to individuals, and tend to be assigned point values based on how they score in each variable…potential consequences are analyzed. Of course, regulations have to be kept in mind and these can often drive what actions can be taken, providing the initial check from deontology. However, knowing that sometimes a particular job has to be done, there does come occasions where waivers have to be signed allowing an exception to accomplish a greater goal, which can be similar to the push and pull between consequentialism and deontology. I believe, in short, that it is highly impracticable to depend on either theory to act as the “be-all, end-all” means for deciding how to navigate any issue of ethics. Rather, one has to be able to take an honest assessment of a situation, think through as broad a scope as possible and considering consequences (ideally soliciting multiple perspectives for a truly large scale problem), and ideally, possessing sound judgment to decide when to follow rules by the book and when to act in accordance with the best intent of their conscience and good will. 

Resources

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