A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

The relationship between consequentialist and deontologist is a comparison between the reason and the outcome. A deontologist wants to adhere to a strict moral code that often leaves no room to wiggle. To a deontologist, there is normally only one answer and that's it. To kill is wrong, to lie is wrong, and the only right thing to do is the right thing. 

I find deontology to be too strict on the decision. If someone kills in self-defense, how is that wrong? To protect yourself from harm from someone else can’t be disputed. However, in the same argument, what if someone goes too far in their defense and kills the attacker when that action wasn’t necessary. I don't think that a lot of life's decisions can be put into a defined box of right or wrong. There are too many situations that don’t conform to a right and wrong logic. 

“Consequentialists claim that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette,2007). The decisions we are given are not always the best, sometimes we have to make hard decisions. Life puts us into uncomfortable situations. Consequentialists want to pick the best outcome, which may lead to an immoral decision. Just because the outcome is ethical or moral doesn’t mean that the pathway to get that conclusion was ethical. The outcome doesn’t outweigh how you got there. 

After reflecting on both theories, I can't say that I perfectly fit into either one. I have made a decision based on the strict rules of deontologist and have made decisions that are based on the outcome not the means in which I got there. I do tend to lean more towards the Consequentialists. I think that the outcome is what matters, the intent is what makes it ethical. There are a lot of situations that make this a bad argument but within reason. Consequentialists have good intent. I think that if we apply the Golden Rule, “You must treat others in the same way that you would want to be treated in the same situation” then we can say that Consequentialists is moral and ethical (Putnam,n.d). 

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

Putnam, M., (n.d.). The golden rule in business.  Global Ethics Solutions. Retrieved from: https://www.globalethicssolutions.com/articles/2016/11/28/golden-rule-business/

A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

The train dilemma is an interesting topic. I find myself not answering the question because I need to know so many other details. The ethics of the situation aren’t important to me until I have details about the situation. Even with all the other details, I don’t know that I would be able to fully answer the question.

In the first situation, we have unknown children with an unknown age and condition. It is hard to say in the situation how I would react. Are the 5 children diseased or is the one child a serial killer in the making? These are the important and key facts that are required for anyone to make an ethical decision. 

The elderly man is the same questions and situation. I can’t place myself in that situation because I can’t see it or know any information about the situation. The last question in The Train Dilemma I found myself at the answer before I finished reading the question. I don’t think I would hesitate to save my children. If I was given the situation of picking between my children I don’t know what I would do. I can’t reason picking between my 2 girls.

                I found that after reviewing the questions in The Train Dilemma that ethics really are in how much I rely on details. If someone ignores portions of an ethical dilemma, I think that is worse than being ignorant of important information on a decision. I have seen a lot of managers make poor leaders only because they make quick decision on blaming someone without all the details. The details of a situation take a long time to find but they are there. People need to be justified or held accountable by those details.

                Leaders need to dig into details. If someone is constantly late for work, find out why. Is that person having a rough time at home with their spouse, or are they just a lazy person? I find too often people who are supposed to be a leader ignoring details just because they want to move on to the next Train Dilemma and make a rash decision. We as leaders need to have a drive to understand and not just look at a situations details as too soft. Ethics is about details and to be a leader you have to dig until you have found the bottom or root of the situation.

                Ethical decisions take time to develop. Managers who make rash decision are only going to be manager. Leaders are going to have supporters and followers because they developed the solutions instead of letting the train hit the random person.

                In closing, my final thought on The Train Dilemma is: Why are children playing on train tracks? Where are these parents? I couldn’t get past this question in my ethical decision.