Category: Deontology

Introduction

In this article, Baron and Spranca argue that protected values arise from peoples need to engage in some actions, as opposed to the anticipated consequences. The authors purpose for writing this article was to show that protected values are positively correlated with quantity insensitivity, agent relativity, and moral obligation. Additionally, the authors wanted to show that people with protected values experience anger even by thinking about the possibility of making trade-offs and they normally live in denial of the need to engage in such trade-offs for their protected values. The authors hypothesized that protected values derive from rules that prohibit certain actions, rather than values for potential outcomes of these actions (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 2). The information contained in this article is similar to works done on the philosophy of protected values and why and how people make decisions when in a quandary. This paper argues that Baron and Spranca, in their article, successfully prove that people gain a sense of protected values due to deontological rules concerning certain actions.

Article Review

Protected values are those that resist trade-offs with other values, particularly economic values (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 1), they are associated with absoluteness, and thus they are insensitive to quantity. In other words, the quantity of consequences associated with certain actions is irrelevant in the face of protected values. Therefore, these values are tied to deontological rules concerning an action. For instance, killing one species of animals is equivalent to destroying thousands of animal species. In this case, protected values are concerned with the killing of animal species, whether one or thousands and thus the results are inconsequential, hence the concept of quantity insensitivity. The authors proved this point through their experiments, whereby the selected participants endorsed the property of quantity insensitivity.

Similarly, protected values have the property of agent relativity as proved in the article under study. Deontological rules, which form the basis of protected values, are agent-relative rules because they are concerned with the involvement of a particular person. According to Baron and Spranca (1997), a truly agent-relative rule would hold that X should care about Xs childs welfare and Y should care about Ys childs welfare, but X need have no concern either with Ys child or with insuring that Y look out for the welfare of Ys own child (p. 4). As shown in the authors experiments, protected values only make sense when a person is involved in the said action. In this case, while taking care of ones children is important, people are only obligated to take care of their children, not those of others.

Additionally, Baron and Spranca (1997) successfully showed that protected actions are closely tied with moral obligation. In this case, moral obligations are not suggestions or conventions tied to personal preferences, but they are universal and independent of what an individual might think or prefer. Therefore, from an objective perspective, people should carry out these obligations whether they agree with the involved process or not. Baron and Sprancas experiments showed that normally, people associate their protected values with moral obligation, which makes it a characteristic of such values. In this case, the authors proved that protected values are mainly concerned with the prohibition or acceptance of an action, as opposed to the consequences.

The fourth property of protected values as shown in this article is the denial of trade-offs through fantasy. In this case, people have a tendency to deny the existence or possibility of the occurrence of trade-offs, and thus one thing cannot be sacrificed for another, even when the consequences are admirable. In other words, such people hold to the belief that their protected values do no harm. For instance, the opponents of family planning will deny that the failure to support such programs would have adverse effects, such as increased abortion, unplanned pregnancies, and other related negative social aspects.

Lastly, Baron and Spranca (1997) successfully showed that people would generally become angry even at the thought of having to make a certain trade-off in cases where protected values are involved. This attribute could be understood from the perspective that protected values are associated with moral obligation. The authors experiments proved this argument by showing peoples reluctance to make certain decisions due to preconceived violations of moral obligation.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that Baron and Spranca (1997) successfully proved that protected values are hinged on deontological rules deriving from laws that prohibit an action as opposed to the expected consequences. Therefore, to refute the relevance of consequences in an action, protected values are characterized by agent relativity, quantity insensitivity, moral obligation, denial, and anger. Concerning the last paragraph at the end of the article, I think that the authors are right in the arguments made therein. Making policies that consider protected values for all people is impossible, as a society cannot take into account all these values given the underlying heterogeneity. Ultimately, policymakers have to decide which trade-offs are worth making based on utilitarianism, given that the public will be affected by such decisions.

Reference

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1-16.

Telling a lie is a character that exists in human beings, which is practiced often than other behaviors like integrity and honesty. It occurs in the society as a wrong act according to the morals of human beings. In spite of the morals of the society, everybody lie to survive in various situations of life (Souryal 218). Lying and deception are therefore discussed based on ethical theories presented by the philosophers. The consequentialism and deontological theories have been put in place to give views on the concept of lying and deception.

The consequential theory explains the impacts of lying focusing on how the act of lying undermines human beings by letting those lying to have power over the fellow human beings. Honesty is therefore essential for survival in the society. The deontology on the other hand has the view that deception denies human beings respect as rational beings, which is a natural aspect. Deception is a generic notion with statements that the speaker may tend to believe is true though misleading. These statements can convey impressions, which are not true by simply withholding the information (Souryal 225).

Lies and deception are therefore issues that mislead individuals into having wrong conclusions. Lies manipulate human beings hence diminishing their dignity and are therefore likened to violence since they force people to engage in acts they are not willing. Just as the coercer lures people to do as per his or her will through threats, a liar on the other hand undermines thinking of the other individual.

Philosophers like Kant, Augustine and Socrates hold the view that the virtue of veracity is unconditional and that it is something that is expected in all situations of human life. There are no exceptions therefore in human life where truthfulness is not essential even if it is in the case of death. God therefore considers lying as a vice even if it does not cause harm to a specific individual since it generally causes harm to the society as a forbidden act. Some philosophers hold the view that the natural law does not prohibit all lies (Souryal 236). Many philosophers believe that it is not practical to condemn the act of lying simply because the common sense of human beings dictates that there must be instances when falsehood is acceptable.

The duty of being truthful is a social condition that is imposed to all members of the society. People are obliged to communicate ideas, which are believed to be true for others to be aware and certain of the true aspects of the society to be relied upon. The police are the people who have been held with dignity by the society as being truthful because they are given the power to give people freedom through the constitutional rights.

Consenquentionalism theory explains that lies are natural acts and can be justified depending on the results. In this case, lies that increase happiness as the outcome or cause no harm are justified to be acceptable in the society. On the other hand, lies that cause harm to individuals or the society as a whole or decrease the happiness are condemned. Lies are therefore said to be harmful to other people depending on the effect they have in the society (Souryal 245).When the benefit of the lie is greater, the effect is less serious and less harmful if the effect benefits the deceived person.

If lies are to be accepted, the society has the duty of identifying which lies are to be accepted and under which circumstances they should be justifiable. This should be done in the public forums like the court proceedings though to some extent this is not practical because people are living in a world that is full of lies as much as they will be willing to serve genuinely in the public forums. As much as the legal systems permit the police to lie, though in strictly defined situations, it is not in a written statement for them to mention it when they are sworn in for duties (Souryal 259). They are therefore allowed to cheat in circumstances like when conducting interviews, interrogations as well as carrying out investigations.

The psychology of lying has a specific body of literature in which it is constituted like the self-esteem of an individual, the ego and the sense of self-protection. The sociological aspect on the other hand is expressed through the neutralization theory, differential association and the learning theory. The literature behind the psychological aspect of lying and deceiving is that the individual acquires happiness through the satisfaction of his/her ego by either obtaining the sense of being powerful or manipulating the emotions of other people.

The sociological theories explain the deviance among the police force. In the sociological aspect, crimes are learnt from others just like the way people learn other behaviors. The attitude held by the society towards a particular crime is learnt in the same way. As much as the police force is allowed to act falsely under restricted circumstances the society might feel that it is practicing injustice especially when some of the cases in the court are seen to be minor and the culprits released, which could be against the societys expectations (Souryal 264). The police encounter political and moral conflicts in their daily duties where they are tempted to engage in corrupt deals if they follow the utilitarian way of reasoning.

The act of lying and deception has manifested in other professions apart from the police force especially among the lawyers, nurses and doctors where their professional ethics require that they maintain tell the truth in all activities. Lying and deception has therefore become a practice in their daily activities. Among the lawyers, this is practiced in the relationship with the clients, the public as well as other lawyers. The lawyers can therefore deceive the clients by misrepresenting their experience as well as knowledge for them to gain the trust of the clients. The lawyer deceives the public by presenting false statements even though he or she is aware of the crimes the client has committed.

The doctors on the other hand take oaths with a code of ethics that demands them to offer quality services to the clients. This includes improving their health condition as well as maintaining secret of the medical condition. On the contrary, doctors have always distorted and omitted information regarding the clients and misrepresented it to avoid stress and emotional torture. For instance, the doctors use terminologies like no reported cases as a way of deceiving the public especially when there are alarming incidents, which have occurred but they do not want to disclose the information to the public.

Introduction

Consequentialism and deontology form part of the common approaches to moral thought. This paper explores the strengths and weaknesses of these concepts. The paper focuses on the argument of W. D Ross in the exploration of deontology, while the paper focuses on the argument presented by Philip Pettit in the exploration of consequentialism.

Strengths and weaknesses of deontology

Deontology is a concept of normative ethics that determines the morality of any given action by basing on the obligations of the actor or agent. Ross introduced the concept of intuitionism in deontology by arguing about the prioritization and rationalization of moral reasons behind an action.

This is one of the main strengths of deontology as far as exploration of moral thought in the society is concerned. The morality of an action can only be determined by putting to scale the diverse explanations and arguments concerning the course of action and determining the reasons the argument seems to have profit. The other strength of deontology based on the thesis by Ross is the distinction of moral obligations of agents in any given action.

Ross makes a distinction between the prima facie duty and the actual duty of an agent. The prima facie duty is the conditional duty of an agent, while the actual duty entails the compelling forces behind a certain action.

These compelling forces are often weighed against the stimuli to determine the critical moral reasons and circumstances that motivated a certain kind of action. Moreover, there is a classification of obligations into special and general obligations (Hooker n. p.). Therefore, deontology is broader and the best concept in exploring moral thought.

Deontology gives a lot of space for rationalizing and justifying a moral action to the extent that it does not offer enough room for questioning moral actions. There is also no clear basis on which to make a distinction between the diverse moral duties. This comes from the argument that the validity of moral duties differs with time and situations. Therefore, no clear mechanisms are provided on how to solve conflicting issues between moral duties (Hooker n. p.).

Strengths and weaknesses of consequentialism

Consequentialism is a concept of moral philosophy that opines that the moral rightness of an action is determined by the outcome of the action. Pettit presented an argument pointing to the strength of consequentialism over other approaches to moral thought. In his support of consequentialism, Pettit made efforts to establish a connection between the agent and the action, an aspect that is critical in the moral justification of actions.

The goodness of an action can only be fully explored by looking at the action and the process leading to that action. This makes consequentialism to be analytical. The other strength of this moral concept as presented by Pettit is the broadening of the grounds on which moral rightness of actions can be assessed and justified. According to Pettit, the effects of an action and the moral rightness can be determined by making a comparison with other moral concepts (Danaher para. 3).

One main weakness of consequentialism is that it gives priority to the action itself and the effects of an action. This makes it quite hard for the concept to explore the moral responsibility of a moral action, which mostly begins with the establishment of the state and position of an actor or agent (Singleton 2).

Conclusion

From the discussion, it can be concluded that the strength of deontology as argued by Ross is in its classification of the obligations of actors, while its weakness is in the fact that it does not give enough room for critiquing moral actions. On the other hand, the strength of consequentialism as presented by Pettit is in its establishment of a link between the action, the process, an agent. Its weakness is its prioritization of actions, which makes it hard to explore the moral course of action.

Works Cited

Danaher, John. Philosophical Disquisitions, 2009.

Hooker, Brad. Developing Deontology: New Essays in Ethical Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley, 2012. Print.

Singleton, Jane. Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism, 1999.

Introduction

Ethical theories have enabled human beings to assess whethethe r their actions and consequences of their actions are ethical or unethical. Human beings can assess their athe ctions basing on deontological theories and consequences of their actions basing onthe teleological theories. According to Immanuel Kant, deontological ethics perceives morality as an inherent attribute of an action, which contrasts with teleological ethics that perceivethe morality from the consequences of actions.

Since human beings act according to certain rules, regulations and principthe les, deontological ethics evaluate whether actions comply with them or not. Thus, compliance with certain rules, regulations, and principles determine the ethical nature of actions that people perform. To evaluate whether certain actions are ethical, Imthe manuel Kant formulated a concept of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative compels people to perform moral duties in spite of varied desires that influence thea m to act otherwise.

Thus, the concept of the categorical imperative can effectively analyze whether certain actions are ethical or not. As mega companies experience ethical dilemmas, they need an urgent and effective solution that is morally acceptable. Xstratthe a is a company that is facing an ethical dilemma of helping community economically and at the same time polluting their environment with lead. Therefore, to analyze the morality of Xsthe trata activities of mining, this paper uses deontological theory to assess lead pollution in Mount Isa.

Lead Pollution

Xstrata has been mining on Mount Isa since 2003, and it has received numerous accusations for polluting the environment with lead and predisposing children to lead poisoning. Lead emissions from Xstrata mines have polluted gardens and water, thus elevating levels of lead in blood among children making them have physical and mental impairments. A recent study has shown that levels of lead in blood among children are above 10ug/dL, which is a lethal threshold set by the World Health Organization.

High levels of lead in blood have serious health effects, particularly in children who are still developing because they affect physical and mental development. Since severely affected population are people who live around Mount Isa or workers of mines, Xstrata is in a dilemma of whether to reduce lead pollution or increase its mining activities to generate more money. It is evident that Xstrata is focusing on generating profits since lead pollution reached the highest levels ever in 2010.

Despite several complains from environmentalists, healthcare, and Mount Isa victims of lead pollution; there has been little response to protect Mount Isa population from massive emission of lead by Xstrata mines. Although substantial evidence to prove that elevated levels of lead in blood and environment are real, authorities such as healthcare, Mount Isa Mines and Queensland Environmental Agency have been reluctant to act appropriately to reduce emissions or alleviate impacts of lead pollution in the environment and blood.

Therefore, it means that government in conjunction with Xstrata has been focusing on generating much profit from the mines while neglecting activities that cause lead pollution. At some instances, Xstrata has attributed lead pollution to rock outcrops within Mount Isa because management does not believe that it is responsible for lead pollution that threatens the lives of many children.

Deontological Theory

Deontological theory of ethics postulates that morality lies in actions that people perform rather than consequences of actions. According to Immanuel Kant, goodness is not in consequences of actions, but an intrinsic attribute of an action. Rationality of human beings enables them to weigh their actions before doing them. Therefore, it means that a good or a bad action originates from the mind and not consequences of actions.

From deontological perspective, consequences do not matter because nature of actions determines morality. Immanuel Kant reasoned that our beliefs, desires, and preferences guide our rational actions and behaviors. Hence, according to deontological theory, morality is a product of rational actions that originates from the mind and compels people to act or behave in a certain manner.

Given that the nature of actions can vary depending on circumstances, Immanuel Kant formulated the concept of the categorical imperative as a way of assessing the morality of actions. Since human beings rely on moral laws to determine the morality of actions, Immanuel Kant holds that laws, rules, and regulations are categorical imperatives, which compel people to perform or not to perform certain actions.

In categorical imperative, Immanuel Kant teaches that one needs to act in a manner that reflects universal law and desirable to everyone. Actions that are not desirable to many people are immoral because they cannot become universal principles that can morally guide humanity. Thus, laws, rules, and regulations are categorical imperatives that people use in judging the morality of actions in society.

Application of Theory

From a deontological perspective, Australian government and Xstrata are acting unethical in Mount Isa mine because their priority is to generate money at the expense of causing lead pollution. Since Xstrata generates millions of dollars, the government obtains enormous revenues and royalties while neglecting health concerns of Mount Isa population because money is everything.

Thus, the government has violated categorical imperative of protecting the lives of its citizens by allowing Xstrata to emit prodigious emissions of lead dust into the atmosphere, against regulations of the national environmental agency.

The government has given Xstrata much freedom to pollute the environment with lead because it has set a high threshold of lead, which causes pollution to be above the threshold recommended internationally. Thus, government and Xstrata are not only violating national regulations but also international regulation of lead pollution.

Moreover, even though many children have high levels of lead in their blood, government and Xstrata have not taken any serious interventions to mitigate the effects of lead or reduce pollution. Since the government has a responsibility of protecting the health of its citizens, it has violated categorical imperative by allowing Xstrata to release much emission into the environment that has caused physical and mental impairment to young children.

Due to the insufficient studies conducted, the government and Xstrata hold that lead, which caused contamination, originated from rock outcrops, but currently there is enough evidence to incriminate Xstrata mines. Therefore, both government and Xstrata have violated the rights of citizens for they have failed to provide a safe environment and enhance the healthy lives of Mount Isa population.

Analysis

Deontological theory of ethics is helpful in determining the morality of human actions because it is unbiased. As teleological theory examines the consequences of actions, it is prone to bias because the same action can have different consequences, hence varied implications of morality. Use of rules, regulations, and laws to determine the morality of actions is decidedly a standard and uniform way of assessing and defining morality in society.

Hence, the categorical imperative is a concept that Immanuel Kant formulated to explain how people act in accordance with laws, rules, and regulations. Moreover, deontological theory acknowledges that human beings are rational in their actions and behaviors; hence, the action is an appropriate parameter of determining morality.

Penultimate

Deontological theory of ethics is appropriate in determining morality in society because it offers a standard view of morality based on human actions. Since human beings are rational in their actions and behavior, it is suitable that their actions are subject to rules, laws, and regulation. In the case of Xstrata mines, if environmental laws did not exist, the government could have allowed Xstrata to release excessive emissions into the environment, which would have caused severe health conditions among residents of Mount Isa. Thus, the deontological theory is the best theory of ethics that has no biases or inconsistency in its application.

Conclusion

Ethical theories are essential, for they guide people in making ethical decisions when faced with dilemmas in life. The deontological theory examines morality based on the nature of actions because it claims that morality is an inherent property of action but not the consequences of actions.

Thus, the analysis of Mount Isa mines from a deontological point of view shows that both the government and Xstrata violated categorical imperative by allowing excessive lead pollution of environment despite its negative impacts on human health. Hence, the deontological theory of ethics is effective in analyzing ethical issues that people face in the course of life.

Works Cited

Hooker, Brad. Kant Normative Ethics. Richmond Journal of Philosophy 1.1 (2002): 1-7.

Munksgard, Niels, Taylor, Mark, and Mackay, Alana. Recognizing and Responding to the Obvious: the Source of the Lead Pollution at Mount Isa the Likely Health Impacts. Medical Journal of Australia 193.3 (2010): 131-132.

Introduction

Human trafficking is a modern practice of oppression characterised by heinous acts such as recruiting, transferring, and harbouring a person using coercion, kidnapping, and trickery, among other intimidating means. This practice has grown into an international problem.

About two centuries ago, slavery was an everyday business in many countries, especially in the western world where Whites oppressed Blacks. Today, this unethical behaviour still exists in fairly different occurrences where individuals are mostly promised good jobs and a better future only to end up being abducted.

Countries have diverse philosophies, sentiments, and perceptions of various ethical issues that surround human trafficking. By definition, human trafficking is the smuggling of people for forced labour or commercial sex among other disreputable purposes.

Ethical issues are central to the prevention of human trafficking. Individuals, organisations, or nations should play their parts in ensuring the alleviation of this act by embracing and practising the right morals and codes of conduct.

Moreover, governments have a crucial role in the implementation of zero-tolerance policies to wicked practices such as human trafficking. Upon using the theories of deontology and utilitarianism together with the perspective of egoism, it can be said that human trafficking is unethical since it deprives victims of their rights to safety and freedom thereby increasing viciousness, self-indulgence, and unproductivity.

Understanding issues relating to human trafficking requires one to keep an open mind. Does the smuggling of people for involuntary labour or commercial sex infringe their rights to protection or self-determination? Is it acceptable to let the victims serve as a means to an end?

Are factors such as greediness and forcefulness rampant in this area of concern? It is obvious that people perceive human trafficking as ethically wrong practice. This discussion provides insight into this area of concern (using deontology and utilitarianism theories, as well as the perspective of egoism) with a view of showing whether it is ethical or unethical to abduct people for forced labour, commercial sex, and other involuntary activities.

Utilitarianism Theory on Human Trafficking

Utilitarianism is a theory that postulates that an act is good if it positively impacts the biggest number of people (Gray & Schein, 2012). For instance, in the wake of technological advancements in almost every industrial sector, machines have been known to replace human labour.

This tendency results in the retrenchment of employees and is deemed unethical. On the other hand, deontology seeks to establish whether doing an act is indeed good or bad. For example, the intention of making an attempt to save your neighbours house from an inferno can be taken as ethical behaviour. Finally, this paper will discuss the perspective of egoism, which depicts the selfish behaviour of abductors.

According to utilitarianism, moral action is one that brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people (Gray & Schein, 2012). The application of this theory to human trafficking reveals that the victims are deprived of their rights to safety and freedom since they are held against their will.

It follows that many people would disagree with trafficking because it fails to create happiness for the greatest number of people. It only benefits a small number of people who are actively involved in the act guided by greed and coercion (Nelson, Bruskotter, Vucetich, & Chapron, 2016). Further, human trafficking lessens the importance of the abducted individuals in society.

Victims encounter a number of atrocious events such as victimisation and rape, which leave them physically and mentally tortured. As a result, these folks are rendered invaluable in society (Nelson et al., 2016). In a utilitarianism perspective, such ordeals do not create happiness for the great number of people in society and, thus, are deemed unethical.

Looking into the benefits that accrue from the human trafficking business compared to the number of perpetrators, the activities involved still do more harm than good to the victims. Perhaps, it can also be argued that the act has a positive influence on the economy; hence, it benefits many people (Conway & Gawronski, 2013).

However, the size of the affected population outweighs that of the beneficiaries to a large extent. The happiness of one person is traded for the benefit of another person. Some acts involved in the smuggling of human beings across transnational borders include violence, denial of movement, fraud, and falsification of working conditions and terms, among others.

In this process, a migrant at one point becomes a trafficked person in another stage (Conway & Gawronski, 2013). Therefore, it can be deduced that human trafficking is an unethical act, and the perpetrators should be seized and subjected to the law.

On another perspective, utilitarianism theory can be applied where the devastating effects of human trafficking in the society are far-reaching. Every day, thousands of people, especially those who lack proper education, financial stability, and outright maturity, fall into the traps of traffickers. For instance, the United States alone receives over fifty thousand trafficked individuals each year.

The effects of this trend are scary, as evidenced by the economy of the country. Victims, especially young women and children, are often exploited sexually and abused with others being forced into commercial sex. This situation increases their risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

Traffickers being the only beneficiaries from the ordeals, the society is deprived of happiness as resources are used to treat, educate, and/or deport some of the saved victims (Duong 2015). In this sense, human trafficking can be regarded as unethical since it wrongs not only the victims but also the society in the destination.

In their home country, further resources are used by the victims family, society, and state to search for lost individuals in cases where forceful abduction is involved. Overall, human trafficking disgraces the whole society; hence, it is an unacceptable practice.

Deontological Theory on Human Trafficking

Deontological theory plays a great deal in determining whether an act is morally right or wrong. From a deontological perspective, an act is considered ethical if it is accepted unanimously (Conway & Gawronski, 2013). Along these lines, it means that a tendency that is condemned universally is morally wrong. Deontology creates a strong argument about the inappropriate nature of human trafficking.

This ethical theory postulates that actions and motives remain unethical unless they are embraced by everyone in the society with a view of promoting a good system.

For instance, if everyone would accept to buy slaves or traffic people across regional and transnational boundaries, then human trafficking would be regarded ethical since it would be universally acceptable. However, since it is not an accepted practice among worlds societies, it is a doomed exercise that is rejected by the proponents of deontology (Gray & Schein, 2012; Conway & Gawronski, 2013).

Prostitution is a prime aspect of human trafficking, especially among young women who fall into this trap. Although commercial sex can be viewed from a number of perspectives depending on the intentions of the people engaging in the act, various issues are raised when it occurs in an abduction setup (Elezi, 2011).

Kants deontology theory is framed about judging a persons intentions to decide whether a particular activity is morally right or wrong. The theory states that people should treat others as ends in themselves, not as a mere means to an end (Gray & Schein, 2012). This statement implies that people should evade from deriving benefits on the accounts of others.

The existence of several theories supporting the same ethical issue renders the discussion about human abduction a vastly contested topic among theorists. In a personal opinion, the deontology theory provides a stronger argument on the wickedness of trading human beings for tailored interests. In this ethical theory, a practice is only considered right when it is universally accepted by society (Gray & Schein, 2012).

The utilitarianism theory discussed above only counts on the happiness created amongst a majority of the people for an act to be deemed morally correct. Although it has its stake on the rejection of human trafficking, it leaves out some groups of people who are either involved in the heinous act or are undecided on its relevance or incorrectness.

The perspective of Ethical Egoism

A perspective that comes up from this discussion is egoism, where the perpetrators are seen as selfish individuals who only think about the potential benefits that accompany human trafficking; they do not regard the consequences of their actions to families and societies at large (Danovitch et al., 2013).

Ethical egoism is a moral dogma in which individuals exclusively promote self-interest. Freedom is one of the key facets of societal morality and ethics that allows people to come up with personal selections without interrupting the liberties of others. However, egoism, as seen in human trafficking, directly denies the victims their rights to freedom. One person becomes the property of the other.

Conclusion

Human trafficking is a wicked act that can be prevented by upholding deontological and utilitarianism theories. Utilitarianism tells us that moral acts result in happiness amongst the greatest number of people. Therefore, people should embark on acts that make others happy but not those that deprive them of their rights and freedoms. On the other hand, deontology theory holds that an act is moral if it is acceptable for the whole society.

This underpinning renders the abduction of human beings for atrocious interests a forbidden activity that should be abolished. The society can play a great role in discontinuing modern forms of slavery, including human trafficking.

This objective can be accomplished through legislative means, awareness campaigns, or by the ratification of petitions amongst nations. Although such efforts may seem insignificant, they can make a huge difference for victims of human trafficking.

Deontology theory provides a stronger argument in the discussion on human trafficking and, thus, should be embraced in solving dilemmas of the menace. However, the efforts of individuals, education, and the creation of awareness of the consequences of human trafficking worldwide through relevant institutions will play a tremendous role in stopping the act.

References

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(2), 216.

Danovitch, G. M., Chapman, J., Capron, A. M., Levin, A., Abbud-Filho, M., Al Mousawi, M.,&& Jha, V. (2013). Organ trafficking and transplant tourism: the role of global professional ethical standards  The 2008 declaration of Istanbul. Transplantation, 95(11), 1306-1312.

Duong, K. A. (2015). Doing human trafficking research: Reflections on ethical challenges. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 5(2), 171-190.

Elezi, A. (2011). Fighting human trafficking. Juridical Current, 14(1), 77-91.

Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2012). Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), 405-423.

Nelson, M. P., Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., & Chapron, G. (2016). Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conservation Letters, 9(4), 302-306.

Introduction

There are numerous different moral dilemmas people encounter over the course of their lives. Humans are social animals, which means that it is crucial for them to navigate a complex world of relationships in order to function efficiently in modern society. This often implies situations in which one must decide whether, to tell the truth. People mostly have a personal moral compass that guides them towards the right choice. Some individuals tend to make moral judgments by contemplating the consequences of potential lies. Others automatically choose the truth since they believe in the universal laws of rightness and wrongness. They act upon the rule Thou shalt not lie. The main difference between the two approaches is that while some people focus on the consequences of their lies, others reject the idea completely. The purpose of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of consequentialist and deontological theories by applying both of them to practical scenarios. These insights will be helpful in generating an optimal course of action for anyone presented with the moral dilemma of telling a lie vs. staying truthful.

The Consequentialist Take on Lies

Consequentialism is a commonly practiced moral theory in real-life scenarios. The ends justify the means is an aphorism often used to describe the principles of this approach. According to consequentialists, the only proper way to act is based on a cost-benefit analysis of an action (LaFollete, 2006). When a person makes a decision based on this theory, they first determine possible good and bad outcomes and estimate whether the total good outweighs the total bad. Consequentialism is, in turn, divided into three normative theoretical approaches. Proponents of utilitarianism argue that a person should consider the consequences of their actions on all the parties involved in a particular scenario. Ethical altruists believe that consequentialism excludes the actor. Therefore, an action should be considered moral if its consequences are favorable to everyone, except the actor. The last subdivision of consequentialism is ethical egoism  an approach that opposes altruism and states that one should only act based on their own self-interest, which determines what consequences are favorable.

The consequentialist perspective argues that a lies morality or immorality depends on its outcomes. If the consequences of the lie help someone, then it can be considered good and allowable. If the lies outcomes have the potential to harm anyone, then it is deemed bad and unallowable (Schein & Gray, 2018). Lies are usually self-interested or others-oriented. Both of these can be good if their consequences are not harmful. On the other hand, even a lie that aims to help others can be immoral if its long-term consequences are potentially bad. Therefore, it is apparent that consequentialists focus on the outcomes of the act, rather than the nature of the act itself.

Applying the Theory

Moral dilemmas tend to be especially critical in healthcare settings. According to the proponents of consequentialism, it is so because potential outcomes of medical decisions can be either exceptionally bad or have the ability to save someones life. Nurses, for instance, have a professional responsibility to care for their patients. One of the key principles of medical practice is not to inflict any harm. However, one recent study claims that over 90 percent of registered nurses believe that it is sometimes ethical to lie to their patients (Hart, 2019). Telling a lie, in their opinion, can serve the noble purpose of protecting a patient from an overly emotional reaction or preventing them from becoming stressed (Hart, 2019). Based on the consequentialist theory, nurses who choose to lie to their patients often consider their actions moral since their dishonesty serves a larger goal of facilitating patients with the necessary care.

In the world of sports, coaches utilize consequentialist approaches in order to create the appropriate conditions for their trainees to succeed. For example, a gymnast training for the Olympics has lost her grandmother. Her parents and the coach make a decision not to tell her about her grandmas death. Even when she explicitly asks her mother about the well-being of her grandmother, she is assured that everything is fine. According to the consequentialist theory, the parents and the coach acted morally when they agreed to lie. Telling the girl about her grandmothers death would potentially take a mental toll on her, which could affect her training process and overall performance in the competition. The cost-benefit assessment demonstrated that all the years of training and sacrifices could not go to waste due to the unfortunate death of a grandparent.

The Deontological Take on Lies

An ethical theory that opposes consequentialism is deontology. Proponents of the deontological approach believe that every action can be deemed moral or immoral based on the universal laws of what is right and wrong (Hart, 2019). The act of killing is inherently wrong. The same can be applied to lying, cheating, and stealing. According to this theory, every person has the ability to navigate their moral decision-making by choosing what is moral and ignoring the immoral. Deontologists argue that regardless of the consequences of ones actions, some actions are universally right and wrong due to each individuals inner moral duty (LaFollete, 2006). Therefore, deontology functions on the assumption that there are, in fact, specific rules, maxims, and traditions that one must uphold.

When it comes to lying, there are no in-betweens for the proponents of deontology. Dishonesty contradicts the moral law, and, therefore, can be considered bad and deemed unallowable (Hart, 2019). Every individual has a moral duty to be truthful, which is why deontologists deny consequentialist justifications of lying. They focus on the nature of the cat, instead of its short and long-term outcomes. Self-interested lies go against the cultural and religious rules that encourage people to be honest. Others-oriented lies, in turn, are still acts of dishonesty. They violate a certain maxim, which does not require further analysis of the lies positive and negative consequences. Deontology argues that there are no good or white lies (Hart, 2019). No matter how trivial and well-intentioned the lie might be, it goes against the moral code. Furthermore, dishonest acts rob people of their autonomy (Hart, 2019). By telling lies, a person strips another individual of their sense of reality. They can no longer make decisions in an objective manner.

Applying the Theory

An example of dishonesty as a means to strip a person of their autonomy is the story of the Olympic gymnast. The coach and parents may think that they have made the right decisions by lying to the girl about the death of her grandmother. However, according to deontological reasoning, their actions were immoral for two different reasons. Firstly, the coach and parents lies could be considered inherently bad and unallowable since they violated the maxim against dishonesty. Secondly, the parents and the coach deprived the girl of her opportunity to emotionally respond to her grandmas death in real-time. Moreover, it prevented her from saying last goodbyes, attending a funeral, and grieving. This seemingly altruistic lie could also affect the girls relationship with her parents and coach. The girl is less likely to trust her athletic advisors and coaches after the incident. She could develop trust issues with her family as well. The consequences of a lie are complex and unpredictable. This is one of the reasons why deontologists argue for complete honesty in every possible scenario. Navigating the chaotic world of moral decision-making can be overwhelming, which is why deontology presents a clear and speedy solution.

Conclusion

It is apparent that it is hard for any individual to navigate the vast majority of moral dilemmas due to their complexity. Consequentialists argue that moral decisions should be made in accordance with the outcomes of such decisions. Deontologists, on the other hand, focus on moral laws. They believe that one must act based on the universal principles of what is right and wrong. There is an argument for dishonesty, according to proponents of consequentialism. Telling lies is completely unjustifiable based on deontological reasoning. The optimal solution for a scenario where one is faced with the choice of staying truthful or telling a lie lies somewhere in between. While it is important to make decisions based on ones own moral duty, it can be helpful to assess the long-term consequences of ones actions.

References

Hart, C. L. (2019). Is it always wrong to lie? Psychology Today.

LaFollete, H. (2006). The practice of ethics (1^st ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.

A set of guiding principles  morality  focuses on the core of what allows people to live in unified communities. In addition, morality sets what society considers acceptable and right. However, it is not a universally established principle. What one might think is acceptable in their culture could be prohibited in anothers. Geographical locations, religion, family, and life situations all have an impact on morals. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, used the term deontology to describe an ethical system. He believes whether an activity is right or bad is judged by whether it meets our obligation, not by its results. As he named it, the Categorical Imperative is said to be a transcendent moral principle. A categorical imperative differs from other imperatives in that it tells a person what to do regardless of the outcome or goal they are pursuing.

According to deontological theory, the categorical imperative is a fundamental law of morality. Considering the fundamental principle of morality to be a categorical imperative indicates that moral considerations take precedence over other considerations. People have a moral obligation to act in accordance with the following principles and rules, regardless of the outcome. However, there is a drawback in the application of the theory, such as people might be doing the right action even though it causes more harm than doing the wrong thing. For instance, when a stranger asks about personal life, the right thing to do is, to tell the truth even though it may cause harm to a person while lying is an unethical act that may preserve ones intimate secrets. Deontology implies that people obey the laws and carry out their responsibilities. This approach corresponds to our innate instincts on what is and is not ethical. Deontology, in general, ignores certain facets of human behavior and considers them as planned events that can be manipulated and governed using social and moral laws.

On the other hand, John Stuart Mill introduced utilitarianism, which is a philosophy that decides the moral rightness or wrongness of actions based on their outcomes. He claims that actions are morally right if they result in pleasure and wrong if they result in suffering. In simplified words, the theory suggests that the end always justifies the means. Everyone in society seeks to find satisfaction and joy in their actions, and the effects of this search often attract the unintended consequences of pain and suffering. Consequently, in the instance of a bad result occurring, it is deemed wrong.

In contrast, if a positive result occurs, it is considered right. For example, if a person lied to a robber to get away, the action is considered morally right. Even if the person lied, the result is that the individual saved his or her life, which is a positive outcome. In utilitarianism, the ultimate goal of morality in society is to improve peoples lives by increasing the number of positive results like happiness and satisfaction. At the same time, it is necessary to reduce the number of negative consequences like misery and pain that trigger human suffering.

In virtue ethics, instead of focusing on following rules, one should focus on fixing themselves to be a virtuous person. The focus of this moral theory lies within the maintenance of good character and nurturing personal values as opposed to accomplishing duties and acting for a good consequence. In essence, a virtuous person is inherently good and demonstrates this quality in every possible scenario throughout their lifetime due to it being their nature. They will not be considered virtuous because of the desire to get anything out of their actions or because it is said to be their duty.

Virtue ethics differs from other ethical theories significantly since deontology and consequentialism focus on the right action, while virtue ethics is focused on the good life and what type of individual one should be. They are inherently different in the main question the individual should ask themselves. In practice, the difference lies between the questions What is the right action? and What kind of person should one be?. The first question is primarily used to help deal with specific dilemmas, whereas the second helps navigate through life. Thus, virtue ethics pays close attention to the type of character that needs to be achieved for righteous behavior at all times. It is important to note that while being virtuous, a person must always remain at the mean. The right response to every situation should never be too much or too little and one will respond differently to different situations.

In my opinion, it is beneficial to approach moral dilemmas with utilitarianism in consideration of modern civilization. The theory stands out for me as the end justifies the means. Although, this theory should be applied to the general lifestyle that does not involve violence. Violence is the most significant issue, in my opinion, as reducing negative consequences may involve applying violence. As an example, it is possible to consider the war in Afghanistan or Vietnam. War was necessary to resolve numerous conflicts, but the consequences could hardly be justified. Simultaneously, the application of such an approach for general means, such as social relationships where a lie may save someones life or improve a relationship, is the most appropriate application of utilitarianism. In spite of that application, I consider this theory to be the most prominent for me.

The deontological argument for the existence of God attempts to answer the question of whether the moral order and grounding ethics are possible without assuming that God exists. One of its formulations is Kants argument, which states that a superior order is required to guide people in their actions. God acts as a supreme legislator and equilibrates the moral law, and his existence is necessary for the possibility of the supreme good.

Kant presents his argument as the only valid proof of the existence of God. He critiques the traditional ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, claiming that they refer only to the possible experience. God is not part of the possible experience and, therefore, he cannot be known through a speculative way. Instead of a priori arguments based on theoretical deduction, Kant introduces a posteriori arguments grounded on empirical data. He claims that knowledge about God can only be based on moral experience. The reflection on moral duty, determinable by means of the categorical imperative, leads to the idea of God as a definitive guarantee of freedom and immortality of human beings. Without God, no supreme good would be possible, and, therefore, there would be no universal moral consciousness, which is the foundation of human existence.

The doubts connected to Kants arguments can be formulated as the question of whether God existed if there were no moral laws. The societies which are not guided by morality still find their way and meaning to exist. Kants theory was developed in the 18^th century in the context of the educated European society, and it is doubtful whether it can be applied to other contexts, cultures, and civilizations.

It is important to note that the moral law is a mandate which dictates how a person must act. The latter is Kants perspective on ethics and morality, where the supreme principle of morality or Categorical Imperative lies at its core. The act of lying contradicts the morality of truth, which implies that one must always tell the truth regardless of the consequences. The central argument of the given reflection is that Kants position is absurd since lying itself is not immoral, and it is a mere instrument to misinform someone.

One should be aware that truth and lie are rather challenging to define since it assumes full knowledge. Even the most accurate and well-established method of acquisition of truth and facts, the scientific method, is prone to errors, corrections, and paradigm shifts (Lower, 2020). Therefore, telling a person to always tell the truth assumes that such an individual knows the truth. For example, a conspiracy theorist, who believes that the earth is flat, might inherently believe that he or she knows the truth about the shape of the planet. A similar illustration can become significantly more immoral when it comes to dangerous beliefs, such as white supremacy.

In conclusion, the truth cannot have an intrinsic value because it itself cannot be fully known or defined. Even if the truth is recognized as such by most, there are situations where it can undermine the well-being of the entire nation. A CIA agent is acting morally by engaging in lying and disinformation in a foreign nation without which his or her own nation would be at risk. Since a similar tactic is being used against the US, security becomes a priority over truth-telling.

Reference

Lower, S. (2020). Limitations of the scientific method. Libre Texts. 

Objectivity of ethics is an idea that tries to provide a clear way to judge conflicts by separating fact, from subjective opinion. When culture and individual opinion is mixed in to judgement, the ability to properly evaluate a situation or problem becomes more difficult. Even though a solution is agreed upon by a majority vote, that suits the guidelines of the culture, it can still be viewed wrong by outside eyes; which can lead to other issues. Which culture morally is correct? Who’s founding guidelines are we supposed to use to form our verdicts? A big part of current issues faced globally are made more difficult to resolve since differences in cultures and standards prevent quick resolutions. Through ethical objectivism, society is able to clearly distinguish the boundaries of what is right and wrong.

An argument made against the objectivity of ethics has been that of cultural relativity. In this ideology it is believed that we each belong to different cultures, of which have different standards and principles. This makes judging across cultures not accepted. What is acceptable to one culture may be looked down upon by another. The major downside to this way of thinking is the risk of unknowingly falling into subjectivism. Once a person starts to fall under multiple cultures or subcultures, it is easy to pick and choose what rules apply to them. This will become a convenient way of justifying wrong actions. The basis of cultural relativity is that you use your cultures beliefs to judge your actions. What is unclear is how those guidelines came about. Even if an entire culture is following poor principles it does not make it morally okay.

To illustrate this point, we can use the topic of punishment for rape related crime. In some cultures, rape is viewed differently in terms of who’s to blame. There are times in which the victim is punished while the attacker is let off with a lesser sentence. There are even some cases and places around the world where it’s not looked at as a problem in a society, and the attacker doesn’t get any type of punishment whatsoever. Using objective ethics this would not be an issue. The attacker should be the one being punished, not the person being violated.

Furthermore, there are supremacist cultures in which the harming, even killing of other people is acceptable because of their culture’s beliefs. Over time many groups have justified mass genocide simply on the belief that they were doing the correct thing. They followed orders from people of power who in their eyes, were only asking what was right for the people. Situations like this arise from cultures founded on hateful ideologies. This is just another reason why cultural relativism has its major flaws. As time goes on cultures continue to form, each with their own customs and beliefs. If we choose to let cultures individually determine what’s right and wrong, we will continue to repeat history and things like genocide will continue to happen. In these cases, there needs to be a way of thinking that takes a step back and asseses the situation without taking into account personal opinions. Ethical objectivism will help in taking the first step of resolving the issue by identifying these types of problems before they escalate.

An ideology that most supports objective of ethics is Deontology. Deontology uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. A philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that ethical actions follow standard universal moral rules. Rules that included one shall not lie, cheat, or steal. These general rules can easily be applied to any person regardless of their culture. This ideology requires that people in a society follow the rules and perform their duties. This ideology fits well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethically right or wrong. It doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation, and because you only have to follow a set of rules this avoids subjectivity and uncertainty. These rules just simply can’t be violated or broken under any circumstance. In a situation in which a person shoots and kills a home invader it is important to follow principles of deontology. Although the person was defending his home, it is important to note that the person used lethal force, which resulted in the death of another human being. The person needs to be held accountable for his acts even if some people may sympathize with the killer. If we begin to let killings go unpunished it will open the doors to staged killings. People will notice the loop hole in the system, we have formed a way in which people can kill in a justified manner.

The ideology that also supports objectivity of ethics in some ways is Utilitarianism. The idea of Utilitarianism determines right from wrong by focusing on positive outcomes. To be moral, one must produce the greatest good for the greatest number. People should act for the good of their societies at large, or even the world. To produce this greater good, all that matters is the positive outcome regardless of the action. A person elected to lead a large group of people more than likely will be faced with hard decisions that will affect everyone in the group. It is up to this person to either pick, or think of a way that most, if not everyone, will benefit from the choice made. This is a utilitarian approach, it is not realistic to always accommodate everyone, so it is important that each decision made is the option that most helps the majority of people. This way of thinking will help in many areas of every day living. Take taxing for example, although we would all prefer tax cuts, we need to take into account what percentage of the people will be affected by the reduction in funding for things like healthcare, education, and security. It is a difficult decision to make but by using this style of conflict management a proper settlement can be reached.

On the other hand, some people argue that an egoistic approach would be a better option. Egoism is when moral conduct is judged primarily through self-interest. It says that the good consequences for an individual outweigh the consequences placed upon others. An individual has greater value than others, so it’s ethical to act in one’s own self-interest even if it may potentially harm others. Egoism aims to maximize good by keeping the individual happy. There is a saying that goes “united we win, divided we fall.” Naturally as humans we are stronger in numbers, as soon as we begin to drift apart and begin to think only for ourselves, and not for the good of our people, we become weak. Returning to the topic of racial supremacy, there are people who would rather limit themselves of opportunities than to work alongside a person of another race. This not only negatively effects the people involved but now there is a company or organization not performing to its utmost potential simply because of someone’s egoistic way of thinking. This is not a practical way of living one’s life. Under this ideology technically it is justified to live a life of lying, stealing, killing etc., simply because it is in theory bettering, or helping them out in their pursuit of their personal goals.

Evidentially it is important that there be objective ethical rules because it provides a clear-cut way to come to a solution for what is morally right and wrong. As a people we need to share a way to resolve conflicts. The manner of doing so needs to not only satisfy the beliefs of a fraction of the population but should be agreed upon by most. Group decisions should benefit the majority of the group, not just some of the people. There should be a set of accepted universal moral rules that apply to everyone. It is not practical to make rules that are culture specific. The blurred lines between cultures and subcultures do not permit fair judgement for those who identify themselves as pertaining to multiple groups.