This week’s MSLD 634
blog is specifically about my views on the topics of Consequentialism and
Deontology theories as it relates to ethics. My opinions will primarily come
from the view that in a complex world, a few simple rules are needed to keep
harmony and good order and that chaos is only a few steps away.
Consequentialism
“Consequentialists claim
that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences”
(LaFollette, 2007, p. 23). In a recent class exercise we were provided three
scenarios with two choices each, none of which had a desirable outcome. This
was the Train Dilemma of Module 1. Scenario #1 either 5 boys die or one boy
dies; Scenario #2 either 5 boys die or an old man dies; Scenario #3 either 5
boys die or your own child dies. In each scenario it was required to justify
our position and consider the implications. For me the choice for the first two
scenarios was rather easy based on the value of the consequence of the choice. In
my first two choices the one boy and the old man were selected to die, so it
was clear that the use of Consequentialism made the decision easier for me. If
a morally rule based ethical way of thinking was employed for making my decision,
then more people would have died and the feeling of guilt would have been much
greater.
Interestingly enough,
when it came to the third scenario, I could not fathom allowing my son or
daughter to be run over by the train. In this case a rule based system
(Denontology) took over.
Denontology
“Few would argue that rule based ethical systems are complex and
confusing. Ordinary people don’t understand philosophers like Immanuel Kant
when he calls for categorical imperative to govern ethical decision making…names
like deontology and teleology almost always lead to disagreement and debate (Tiatorio,
n.d.). Deontology is a rule based system that our parents, teachers and
communities teach us throughout our life of the things we are expected to do (be
respectful, obey the law, etc) and the things we are expected not to do (lie,
cheat, steal, etc). We learn thousands of do’s and don’ts from the time we
learn to communicate till the day we die. And Tiatorio smartly identifies that
these rules can get very complicated, hence disagreements and heated debates
arise from them. In Train scenario #3, my choice was to save my child and
sacrifice the other five children. As this very choice is written out there is
much internal conflict going on inside me. How can I possibly defend this
choice? Only one way and that is by using the rule that family always comes
first. This rule is a learned rule, and a good example of a Deontological rule.
Complexity Science
In my mind, Consequentialism and Deontological approaches to
ethics seem to equate to deterministic and non-deterministic thinking
respectively. Consequentialism is a very straightforward deterministic way of
thinking about ethics in that things are measured by with the consequential
value. While many of the rules of Deontology are quite deterministic, many
involve abstract thinking (Taiatorio, n.d.) that can be associated with
non-deterministic thinking. If these things hold true, then the way we think
about ethics by trying to divide ethical thinkers into two groups (supporters
of Consequentialism and supporters of Deontology) needs to be redirected into
embracing the concept Taoism of both/and rather than either or (Obolensksy,
2014, p. 7).
The ancient philosophy of Taoism provides a way in which we can
better understand how opposites complement each other. Instead of arguing for
or against either approach to ethics, why not embrace both of them. The Train Dilemma
exercise of module one provide to me that both are indeed needed. In fact, to
further simplify the complex nature of Deontology, make one simple rule. Do no
harm to others. So if this rule is applied with Consequentialism of weighing
the consequences of a particular action, we should always be able to arrive at
an ethical outcome without to much consternation.
Another benefit is that simple rules in a complex system allows
for agility and flexibility to adapt “The balance between having enough rules
to fulfil obligations, and allowing enough freedom to act is a fine one.”
(Obolensky, 2014, 103). There is one important consideration in complex systems
that my proposed ethics model does not account for and that is sometimes the
right answer needs to be allowed to emerge rather than forced. When the answer
is elusive and a decision has to be made the situation is complex (Snowden
& Boone, 2007, p. 72). If an ethical decision has to be made in such
situations, a few simple ethics rules will make decisions much easier.
Is the chaos that we see in the world related to a complex system
of ethics and moral codes? Let me leave you with this thought. “Chaos theory shows
that simple systems can exhibit complex behavior. Complexity theory shows us
that complex systems can exhibit simple emergent behavior…Complex systems seem
to be on the edge of chaos – that means that they are able to balance order and
chaos. What does that mean?” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 89). Would having simple
ethical universal rules help keep this balance?
References:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The
practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Obolensky, N. (2014).
Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Burlington, VT:
Gower Publishing Company.
Snowden, D., &
Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.
Tiatorio, A. (n.d.).
What is ethics? [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.ethicsineducation.com/intro.htm
