Defining Ethically Bad Life Philosophically - Essay Example

? Defining “Ethically Bad Life” Philosophically of and Number Introduction In all generations, there is the need for society to define what is good and what is bad. This forms the basis for regulating conduct and ensuring that there are no tensions between an individual and other relevant stakeholders. There are many views and ideas that can be used to define what is bad and what is good. One school of thought defines what is what is bad on the basis of a set of universal and absolute laws. Another group define what is bad on the basis of relativist principles that are applied to the circumstances at hand to define what is good and what is bad. This paper evaluates the two approaches to defining “ethically bad life”: deontology and teleology. The paper examines each of the two approaches in detail and identifies which of the two can best be used to identify an “ethically bad life”. The tests the thesis that teleology and the end in question is always the most important thing but it must be done on the backdrop of absolute rules. Deontology The principle of deontology asserts that what is bad and what is good is definite and made up of universal laws which define what is right and what is wrong. The foremost philosopher who propounded the theory of deontology in modern ethics is Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that deontology is “a moral theory centered around the idea of unconditional duty-based commitment” (Cherkasova, 2012: 2). In other words, what is bad and what is good are absolute. This means that they are definite and they are stated clearly. Thus, an individual taking a decision must reason and identify what is good and do it. Failure to do what is defined universally as good means an individual has done what is bad. The word deontology is derived from the Greek word “deon” which means “duty” (Morrison, 2009). This implies that what is good and what is bad are based on a set of duties defined in a given society or nation. And this is a basic duty an individual owes to the wider society or community. A person has to reason and identify what he is supposed to do in a given situation and do it. Morrison goes on to state that deontology defines morality in a scientific and clearly defined system or body of rules (2009). Hence, an individual acting in a way and manner that affects a given set of rules has the obligation to identify what is required of him and do it according to the standard of the moral rules and codes. “Duty is the basic element of all moral actions”, the deontological school of thought assets (Johnstone, 2009: 3). The classical deontology school of thought bases its standard of deriving laws from divine authorities and other spiritual laws (Johnstone, 2009). Thus, what is bad is based on what authoritative religious sources state. Over the years, the deontological school of through grew to embrace nationalistic ethics and systems and today, national laws, moral ethics and international standards form the basis of the definition of “moral duties” in deontology. Corrigan and Farrell therefore identifies three main features of deontology as a tool for defining what as an ethically bad life (2012). They are: 1. Objectivity: This means that morality is based on universal and clear-cut rules and principles and an individual must choose the moral rule that applies in the situation. In this case, the sentiments and/or personal feelings of the individual do not matter. 2. Standardization: Morality sets a standard of what is right and what is wrong. And it applies equally to all people irrespective of their circumstances or situations and hence, what is bad is based on the ability to meet the standard required. Failure to reach the standard makes an act bad. 3. Reasoning: An individual must evaluate all his actions and reason to find what is good and what is bad and do what is good. This is done through critical evaluation of the action and activity (Carr, 2009). Teleology Teleology is an opposite to deontology in defining what is good and what is bad. Teleology defines the goal of the activity that a decision is to be taken upon and then chooses an approach that ensures the well being of the people affected by the action (Beach, 2010: 10). This means that teleology is a system of choosing what is right and what is wrong on the basis of the facts of the situation at hand. Teleology is consequentialist in nature and it is influenced by utilitarianism (Fredrickson and Ghere, 2012). Stated differently, in teleology, the end justifies the means. This implies that the end result of an action or a moral decision will define whether the act was good or bad. “Actions are ethical to the extent that their outcomes enhance the net social good” (Martocchio, 2010: 222). This means that an action that is good is one that enhances the good of the people affected by it. On the other hand, an action is bad if it causes a lot of bad results to people affected by it. Thus, teleology is about what the results are, rather than what the laws or moral codes state. Petrick and Quinn state that teleology holds an action to be good if it promotes or tends to promote the fulfillment of goals and progress of humans and enhances happiness (2012). A Critique of the Two Approaches A society needs objective standards and objective rules. Without objective standards on which to hold people for their actions, there will be no accountability and anyone can do anything he deems right. Hence, there is the need for the formulation of universal laws and codes that must be used to detect what is a bad life in society. In this case, deontology or absolutism is an important and vital rule and principle for the detection of what is bad and what is not bad. However, the big problem of deontology is that it brings about a lot of generalizations in defining what is bad. This is because it seem to identify universal standards and people who do not want to live by those standards are forced to live by those standards and forsake their own personal desires and expectations. For instance, in the case of a country like Pakistan, which is an Islamic nation, there are militant Islamist groups that require all members of the society to live according to strict standards in conservative Islam. This requires members of the society to forbid Western education and women are required to stay at home and do whatever the wishes of their husbands are. In the strict sense of Islam, these people are right. And if we go by deontology, they are doing what is required of all Pakistanis. However, this is about shoving down something that some people do not want to ingest and this will definitely be an infringement of people's rights. In this sense, it is apparent that the use of deontological approaches and absolutism creates major problems for people because it defines people as good or bad based on rules and regulations that might not be accepted by all and sundry. Thus, there is a strong case against the use of deontology to define what is right and what is wrong. The second issue with the definition of ethically bad lives by deontology is that there is a problem in defining what is the absolute authority. This is because what might be considered absolute in one part of the world might not be absolute in another part of the world. Additionally, what is absolute in one generation in one part of the world might not be absolute in another generation in the same place. An example is the case of Roman Catholicism which sought to create an absolute authority vested in the priests who had the authority to ordain kings who ruled according to their absolute rules. This definition of absolutism is problematic because it can lead to some corruption of values which might affect people in the society. In illustrating the second issue of deontology, it can be stated that in some generation, all African-Americans were to be deemed as property and used as slaves just because of their skin color. This was held as the absolute “truth”. In Nazi Germany, Jews in all Europe were considered illegal as long as they were out of Concentration Camps after 1943. Thus, a Jew traveling from America who docked in Hamburg, Berlin or any of the occupied parts of Europe were deemed illegal or “bad” and they had to be deported to the Concentration Camps where they faced death or harsh conditions. This was the absolute standard for them. And clearly, in these two examples, the “absolute” constitution or law was clearly wrong. So deontology has the inherent risk of leading large numbers of people in the wrong direction, where they would consider “good” people as “bad” due to the collectivization and summary judgment they placed on people who were in tough conditions. Additionally, deontology held all people to a single standard. This was problematic because no two people have the same circumstances. Even the most identical people in every community have different circumstances. Thus, the universal definition of standards has major setbacks that can cause serious troubles to people when applied in a blind and blanket manner. On the other hand, teleology is not free from criticism. Teleology literally opens the floodgates for criminals and extremely terrible people to justify any deeds. Of course, any “bad” action in life has some kind of excuse or rationalization that can be used to defend it. Criminals can always come up with some excuse or shift the blame. This implies that allowing people too much room to explain things and manipulate. However, in most cases, teleology appears to be the most important and the most crucial tool for judging and assessing people's moral actions. This is because teleology can be used to examine the impact of one's actions and how it affected people. And if the effect is positive and it goes against rules and regulations, teleology is acceptable. For instance, it is bad for a married man to have an extramarital affair. Thus, deontology asserts that if a man is involved in an affair and he is questioned by his wife, he must accept the blame and face the consequences. However, teleology will justify a man who has an affair and denies it if the reason for the denial was due to the fact that a divorce would be expensive financially and emotionally for the couple and affect the children in the marriage. Conclusion The research identifies that in defining what is bad, there is the need for some kind of rules to be made clearly. These absolute rules need to set the universal and objective standard under which a person will be assessed. However, people must be assessed on the basis of their actions and circumstances. And in cases where the actions are reasonable, logical and provide the best results for the people affected by the act, it cannot be called bad, but good. Thus, a bad life is based on the circumstances at hand and the effects of the action on people affected by it. References Beach, W. (2010) Ethics Westminster: John Knox Press Carr, C. (2009) Unlocking Medical Law and Ethics London: Routledge Cherkasova, E. (2012) Dostoesky and Kant: Analysis on Ethics New York: Rodopi Publishing. Corrigan, R. H. and Farrell, M. E. (2012) Ethics: A Diversity Guide Thousand Oaks, CA: Progressive Frontier Publishers. Fredrickson, G. and Ghare, R. K. (2012) Ethics in Public Management Armonk, NY: ME Sharp Inc Johnstone, M. J. (2011) Bioethics London: Elsevier Publishing Martocchio, J. (2010) Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management London: Emerald Group Publishing. Morrison, E. E. (2009) Healthcare Ethics: Criticial Issues for the 21st Century New York: Jones and Bartlett Learning Petrick, J. A. and Quinn, J. F. (2012) Management Ethics: Integrity at Work London: SAGE Read More