Different Aspects of an Ethical Dilemma - Case Study Example

Running head: ETHICAL REASONING Ethical Reasoning Insert Insert Grade Insert 4 December ETHICAL REASONING Morality refers to a code of conduct among a group of people that is generally accepted (Kleiman N.d). A task that this now assigns to the philosophers in the ethics field is to come up with set of rules that stipulate the accepted codes of conducts, the rules that are generally acceptable among the given society. As a result, several theories have been put forth by many philosophers to try to come up with a standard solution to the named problem. Each of the theories ‘emphasizes different aspects of an ethical dilemma and leads to the most ethically correct solution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself’ (Rainbow 2002). Some of these theories are the direct contrast of each other and the debate on which theory best gives the answer continues. However, it has since emerged that certain theories are more appropriate than the other in attempting to set the generally accepted codes of conducts. Kleiman (1994) observed in that since, ‘any proposed rule of addition that is not universally valid cannot be accepted for use in mathematics, then any proposed rule of conduct that is not universally valid cannot be a rule of morality.’ In trying to come up with the solution, there is also a need to define what is ‘good’. Is something good because of what it results into or is it good in itself? The theories that have been brought forth include Deontological (non-consequentialists) theory, Teleological (consequentialists) theory, Libertarianism, and virtue theory among others. Deontologists believe that something can only be good in itself while the consequentialists claim something is judged right or wrong depending on what it results into. In the following section, I examine the consequentialists’ theory in relation to the rest. Consequentialism theory refers to a moral theory that asserts that the goodness or badness of a behavior is judged from the consequences of the behavior. As such, the theory asserts that the better the consequences of a person’s conducts the more likely it is that the conduct is morally acceptable (Kleiman N.d). It essentially contradicts the Virtue theory, which maintains that the moral status of an action or conduct is determined by the intention that the actor had in mind. It also goes contrary to deontologist theory which suggests that the moral status of an act is judged from the act itself, whether it is in accordance to the given specification. However, the definition of goodness is a problem that the consequentialists need to address. Whether an action or conduct will have effects on the individual or to the other people is a point of concern, which gives rise to more forms of the Consequentialism theory. While some consequentialists value what brings physical pleasure as the right conduct, others consider actions that contribute to happiness as the moral acts. In the broad category, the Consequentialism theory can be divided into two categories- hedonism and egoism (Kleiman N.d). A hedonist evaluates a moral act as that which earns him the greatest pleasure. On the other hand, an egoist will value what brings him more happiness as the moral conduct to be adopted. Egoism can further be categorized into three forms; psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and utilitarianism. Psychological egoism postulates that every one always acts or behaves in a manner that best serves their interest. Thus, it asserts that an act will be considered natural because whoever committed the act was fulfilling his interest (Kleiman N.d). However, the egocentric nature is considered as a vice even by those in support of the theory. This is a weakness that the theory has. Ethical egoism suggests that people should always act in a manner that bests suit their interest (Kleiman N.d). Thus, unlike the psychological egoism that only explains an already committed act as having been derived from the need to serve one’s interest, ethical egoism evaluates an act even before it is committed. It is further divided into two categories: individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. An individual ethical egoist will argue that every one should act in a manner that serves his own interests whereas the universal egoists suggest that every one should act in a manner that best serves their interests. In utilitarianism, an act or conduct is considered morally acceptable if the act gives the greatest amount of happiness to the largest number of people (Kleiman N.d). It outlines procedures of calculating what they term as utilities associated with all the acts that could be committed. It is also further divided into two categories namely; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. As the name suggests, act utilitarianism asserts that an act is morally acceptable if it brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Similarly, a rule will be termed good if it causes the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. However, the moral judgments to be made have to meet a certain common criterion regardless of the criterion used, a fact that eliminates some approaches. The judgments reached should be ‘essentially universalizable; this means that, if a particular action is morally required of a certain person, it is morally required of every other person who stands in the same morally relevant circumstances as the first’ (Erwin, Gendin & Kleiman, 1994, p. 398). Let us have a critical look at some of the theories. The Psychological egoism theory claims that all our actions are centered towards our interest. It asserts that although we may wish the others a success (or failure), we do so outwardly, and what drives us is the positive impact the act will have on us. LaFollette (2000) stated that ‘we care about others only because we think that the welfare of others will have ramifications for our own welfare’ (p129). In this regard, we see one weakness of the theory, which also extends to some other egoism theories. It only describes human beings nature but does not explicitly state whether the action is morally acceptable or not. Thus, it is in itself not a moral reasoning theory. The proponents of the theory like Ayn Rand and Thomas Hobbes used it to challenges the traditional ethical theory that required at least some little feelings for the others (LaFave N.d). It only receives its refutation from what we see in the conducts of human beings. Moreover, it has been argued out that, ‘although egoism is a theory consistent with what we observe, there are other extra-evidential considerations that suggest that it should be rejected in favour of an alternative theory, motivational pluralism, according to which human beings have both egoistic and altruistic ultimate desires’ (LaFollette, 2000, pp129-130). Ethical egoism has some strengths on which the egoists capitalize. In the first place, we as human beings understand what is within us better what is in others. We may not be conversant with what suites them. Secondly, it is worth acknowledging that any theory that suggests that an individual should just sacrifice himself on behalf of the other is being unfair to this individual. However, this is not very strong since there other non-egoistic theories that do not require such total sacrifice. Finally, the ethical egoists argue that there is nothing wrong if every one does what makes him or her happy. This may be less strong as well owing to the fact that what suits one’s interest may not comply with the other’s interest, and no man is an island, there has to be a coexistence among individuals (LaFave N.d). On the other hand, the theory has certain significant weaknesses. Firstly, different people have different things from which they derive their happiness and pleasure. The whole society can never act in a way that gives much happiness to an individual. As a result, it can lead to conflicts since every individual will stop the others from doing the necessary, in order to serve their interest. Moreover, the theory can be compared to other vices as tribalism or racism in which one serves the interest of only a section of the entire population. It is a theory that gives two disjoint sets of the world population, the rest, and us and it asserts that the first set requires less recognition. Ethical theory is also inconsistent in itself in that when occasional misfortunes occur, then even the egoist would wish the system changes, at least for the time being (LaFave N.d). For instance, if one believes that he should follow his own interest then if he has a problem and approaches a neighbor for help, the neighbor should serve his own interest, which may not be what this person desired. Finally, just as the psychological egoism, the theory offers no moral sense of reasoning that can provide a solution to conflicts in societies. The original form of utilitarianism is what was later termed act utilitarianism and is attributed to Jeremy Betham. As a little deviation from the original utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism came about as an attempt to lay down rules that could be used to judge the rightness/wrongness and/or goodness/badness of an act (Rainbow, 2002). This theory has some outstanding strength that elevates it above the others. Firstly, the theory is consistent in that it serves the interest of the majority in a given society. No circumstance can occur in the future to make the utilitarian wish that another approach was used for moral judgment. It is also precise. Despite the little misfits that can emerge, the theory attempts to accommodate a wide range characters by arguing from single and simple base. Since we are living with the others in the society, this coexistence helps us develop some sense of intuition which enables us understand the others as well. Thus, we will be able to identify what suites us as well as what suites the others. Besides, the theory provides a basis for moral judgment. Unlike the other two theories that only explained, why human beings behave the way they do or that they ought to behave in such a way, the theory attempts to provide the grounds on which we can evaluate the conducts of human beings. Moreover, the rule utilitarianism does not only provides a method of evaluation but also does so fast. On the other hand, utilitarianism has the weakness that the standard methods of obtaining the units of measuring the amount of benefit derived from an act or the harm it causes may not be fair. Instead, they may be skewed towards one side to suit a predefined interest. As Sutton-Jones (2010) stated, ‘some acts can have equal utilities in their consequences; similarly, an intuitively wrong act may have a higher utility’ (p26). The need to serve the interest of many, if not all, people may be thwarted owing to the human diversity. Which theory then, can we say gives the better if not the best approach? If one intends to take an action, an egoist will suggest that he or she goes ahead and perform the act regardless of its effects on others as long as the act is beneficial to this person. On the other hand, a utilitarian will compare the amount of benefit the act gives to the agent against the amount of harm it gives to the others. Judgment will be done depending on which side overweighs the other. As had been stated, the theory gives units for both benefit and harm caused and defines the weighted formula for determining the basis for judgment. Consider Mary who owns a shop in a local county market. It has been her routine that the shop is officially closed at exactly 6 p.m. due to security reasons. An old man comes to by a packet of flour about five minutes the official time and finds Mary closing down. Despite the old man’s plea that he had missed meals for the last two days and would proceed to the third day if not served here, Mary strongly sent him away in front of a number of passers-bye. All those who were present cursed the woman and vowed not to return to her shop anymore. A volunteer offered to share with the old man the packet he had just bought. Funnily enough, Mary realized that she had not bought cooking fuel and rushed to a nearby stationed that was also to be closed at the same time. She found herself in the same agony by persuading the station attendant to understand how lack of paraffin would cause her trouble with the husband at home. The attendant gave in and hurriedly served her before leaving. To Mary’s surprise, her sales dropped drastically the following day and fell almost to zero in the subsequent days. In evaluating the decision taken by Mary, a utilitarian approach would consider the consequences of all the possible steps that could be taken and weigh against the others. Utilitarian approach thus helps in giving a better moral reasoning. First, she would consider the harm that this decision would bring to the old man. She would also consider the impact her decision would have on the future sales now that other customers were still around. This would be weighed against the possibility that a difference of five minutes would expose the shop more to robbery. Obviously, the latter would have less weight. Thus, her decision would be judged morally wrong. A deontologist would consider the fact that there had been some cases of robbery in the past, in which case he or she would recommend strict time observation. The theory fails to identify the possible result of this action, which should overweigh what she chose to do. After all, business has meaning only if sales are high. Risks and uncertainties can be managed through insurance cover. Lack of consistency is also seen, as Mary wants the petrol station attendant to treat her differently from how she treated the old man. A similar kind of conclusion would be given by the virtue theory. It is thus worth noting that in as much as we have several theories attempting to give bases for moral reasoning, some theories are not as appropriate as the others. Consequential theories are generally more considerate than the deontological theories since in very few cases will something be good in itself. Its consequences will determine its acceptability. Moreover, even among the consequential approach, the utilitarianism theory attempts better basis for moral reasoning. Reference List Erwin, E., Gendin, S. and Kleiman, L., 1994. Ethical issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology. London: Taylor & Francis. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=FQ6bNEVjjZcC&dq=Morality+by+Lowell+Kleiman&source=gbs_navlinks_s [Accessed December 2, 2010]. Kleiman, L., N.d. Ethical Tradition: Ethical Theory: On Morality. (Online). Available from: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Ethical_Theories.htm [Accessed December 2, 2010]. LaFave, S., N.d. Psychological egoism and Ethical egoism. West Valley College. (Online). Available from: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html [Accessed December 2, 2010]. LaFollette, H., 2000. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Wiley-Blackwell. (Online). Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=mJSKMpfvENEC&dq=psychological+egoism&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s [Accessed December 2, 2010]. Rainbow, C., 2002. Description of Ethical Theories and Principles Department of Biology. Davidson College, Davidson. (Online). Available from: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm [Accessed December 2, 2010]. Sutton-Jones, K. L. 2010. An application of Phillipa Foot’s virtue theory in Journalism Presented to the department of Philosophy California State University. (Online). Available from: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2155557721&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1291279539&clientId=29440 [Accessed December 2, 2010]. Read More