Category: Deontology

Ross’s moral theory as a form of deontology and not consequentialism

The concept of deontology is one of the most debated concepts in philosophical ethics. Deontology revolves around the morality of actions of people in society. The question that is answered by the deontologists concerns the basis on which acts can be classified as either right or wrong. W. D Ross is one of the renowned philosophers who have developed several theses on the concept of deontology.

The theory of Ross is founded on the opposition of the argument by Moore, who sought to justify actions based on the impact and not the factors that motivate an individual to engage in such an act. This is referred to as consequentialism. According to Ross, no particular moral action can be justified without measuring the competing moral reason in each of the actions. The relative weight of a given moral action ought to be the main factor on which the moral justification of the action is based.

Ross opposes the principles on which consequentialist concepts are grounded. The principle of good that entails pleasure, friendship, knowledge, beauty, and creativity is subjected to criticism by Ross. According to Moore, there is one basic moral principle, which is the promotion of good. Ross seeks to differentiate between the prima facie duty and actual duty. Ross presents a catalog of the way in which these conditional duties can be presented to pay respect to the moral obligations in actions.

There is an argument by the proponents of consequentialism that the deontological thesis by Ross echoes the arguments in the theory of consequentialism. Ross digs deeper into the moral connectedness of actions and the rationalization of moral actions through a set of comparisons that are done between different actions. What ought to be observed at this point is that most of the arguments by Ross emanate from the way in which the concept of consequential ethics is presented.

Therefore, opposition to the arguments that are presented in consequentialism results in bringing out a number of the consequential arguments in Ross’s deontology. Deontology, as argued by Ross, opines that there are different relative moral reasons that are relied upon in qualifying a moral action.

Consequentialism is based on a single reason in which the aspect of comparison of the courses is demeaned, thereby making it incomplete in qualifying moral acts. The actions of people are triggered by different situations and result in different impacts. This is why comparing different ethical causes is important in moral ethics as argued by Ross.

The exploration of the prima facie duty and the actual duty in moral ethics can be used to justify the distinction between Ross’s deontology and consequentialism. Prima facie duty, according to Ross, is a feature that is utilized in right-making. The right-making aspect entails actions that are grounded on moral reasons to perform the action rather than focusing on the aftermath of the action; consequence as opined by the consequentialist theorists.

Acting in the right way entails balancing of diverse obligations. Actions vary, and so are the reasons why there is a need to establish the grounds on which a given individual decides to take part in an action. The solid stance of all actions is that they have to play a role in reducing human suffering, which is the reason as to why prima facie duties in moral courses are given a lot of attention in deontology.

Ross brings out certain actions that are critical in the classification of the action as a prima facie right. These actions are based on relations between people. They include fidelity, reparation, and gratitude. These emanate from the special obligation of individuals in relations and depict the need to embrace special care or fairness in actions.

The prima facie rights in each situation are often given priority in justifying moral actions. This implies that the absolute obligation depends on the prima facie duty. However, it should be noted that there are other general obligations that fall under special obligations. These include justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and observing the principle of pacifism when engaging in or performing an act.

Therefore, the maximization of good as argued by Moore in consequentialism forms one of the prima facie in Ross’s moral theory. This guides individual on the actions that they are supposed to take in a given situation. The reason why Ross classifies the moral obligations is that each of the obligations has a given level of impact as far as the moral obligation of human beings is concerned. The issue of weighing ought the obligations come in at this point.

Some obligations may seem to have a similar level of weight in a number of instances. For instance, certain situations may require the observation of justice as well as fidelity. In such scenarios, the moral ground becomes wider and the justification of moral obligations comes out of comprehensive rationality of the prima facie obligations.

Why is the moral theory by Ross a deontological concept rather than consequentialism?

As observed earlier, the moral theory by Ross comes from the critique of the consequentialist theory. According to Ross, it is quite daunting for one to identify and set apart his or her moral duty in a situation. The deontological theory, as opined by Ross, recognizes the fact there has to be a good reason for any act, which results from setting the goals of the act on given reasons that are morally justifiable.

Therefore, it is worthwhile to argue that there is a closer relationship between deontology and consequentialism. Deontology gives more detail on the moral ethics environment by adding moral concepts to the consequential theory. Deontology looks at the other side of moral ethics that is ignored by the consequentialists.

The deontological explanation does not completely ignore the explanation that is given in consequentialism, but it seeks to expand the rational space on which the arguments can be more reliable in exploring the ethical environment.

Moral reasoning, which is suppressed in consequentialism, is opened up by way of identifying the modalities on which moral obligations are justifiable. The reason for classifying the moral obligations is to avoid reliance on the general obligations, which when used can imply more good. This sets apart the moral theory by Ross from the consequentialist theory by Moore.

The prima facie obligations are evident in a given action. Certain forms of actions can never be clearly classified as right or wrong as done in the consequentialist theories. The moral theory by Ross does not categorize actions into moral sets without digging deep into the moral comparisons to determine the intensity of the reasons that accrue to the act and the rate at which these actions support the moral duty of people.

Strong points and the weak points of Ross’s moral theory

The main strength of the deontological concept is that it expands the ground of moral reasoning by offering space for moral reasoning in moral ethics. Therefore, it becomes possible to rationalize the moral obligations through relating them with different moral stances in the society.

This is a contradiction of consequentialism, which only pays attention to the aftermath of actions that can result in moral breaches in society. It is easy to derive moral order from moral reasoning. Therefore, deontology is a grounded theory as far as the development of moral ethics in society is concerned.

Ross seeks to classify acts. Ross supports that a certain act can be justifiable even when the act produces effects that are less desirable than the impacts that can be derived from other actions. This is expounded by the prima facie obligation concept by Ross. This raises several questions on whether there is an actual ground on which moral obligations can be ranked and the best obligations chosen from among the obligations.

Based on this, it can be argued that deontology is not complete in itself, in spite of the fact that it offers more details about the basis on which the moral good of action can be determined. The other problem with deontology is the apprehension of the prima facie moral obligations as self-evident. It is argued that this is one way of limiting reason.

The reason is the bridge through which the deontological explanation of moral ethics has been derived from the other moral theories. Ross embraces the observation of morality, but he does not explain the essence of adhering to morality.

Introduction

Utilitarianism refers to the idea that the moral of a particular action is determined mainly by its utility in bringing about happiness or pleasure as a summation among all sentient beings. It can therefore be a form of consequentialism. This, therefore, implies that the ethical worth of an action is solely determined by its level of outcome. Utilitarian reasoning is the guiding idea of a person that the worthiness of a moral action relies on its utility to provide happiness to a large number of people.

Utilitarian reasoning depends on the theory of utilitarianism that heavily relies on consequentialism as the main approach to making decisions on morals. It states that for an action to be right, it must be able to increase happiness to a very large group of people for a long period of time. When coming up with a moral choice, the theory of utilitarianism requires that a cost-benefit analysis is done with an aim of achieving the highest level of human happiness. This renders that kind of action as being good. One aims at seeking happiness as the main target (Kant, 1993).

Deontological reasoning

Deontological reasoning is the guiding thought of a person on the necessity and worth of a moral basing on one’s obligations and duties. The reasoning results from the theory of deontological normative that acknowledges moral worth as an attribute of a person’s actions (Brewer, 1998).

The moral worth settles on official rules of behavior expected from that very person. Under this theory, it is believed that moral obligation results from the duties of a person irrespective of the practical consequences of the actions from those very duties.

With deontological reasoning, one is expected to hold on to his or her responsibilities and duties when evaluating ethical dilemmas (Lyons, 1965). Through upholding duties, one is required to adhere to his or her responsibilities to another to be ethically accepted. The result of applying this theory is the production of consistent decisions simply because it is based on everyone’s set duties.

The argument in terms of normative ethics

Deontological reasoning is not a very much suitable approach for evaluating moral worth, this is because it does not put into account the idea of rationality. There is a need to have a logical basis when coming up with an individual’s duties which is not very much considered in this kind of approach to moral worthiness (Bentham, 2000).

A person’s duties sometimes conflict with deontology reasoning as the approach to evaluating moral worth. It is not concerned about other people’s welfares. This accepts brings about conflicting responsibilities and does not at having clear ethical resolutions.

Utilitarian reasoning does not put into consideration that though people use the available life experiences to tell the outcomes, no one can be sure that there will be truths in the predictions made. It does not also consider that people are expected to frequently behave for the benefit of others regardless of the problem that results from an action (Rosen, 2003).

Conclusion

Utilitarian reasoning can best be used as an argument for a variety of political views; this is because it aims at satisfying all the people and support the liberty principle to prevent harming others. Deontology reasoning helps one adhere to his or her obligations and duties for good morals which results in efficiency at workplace.

References

Bentham, J. (2000). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brewer, S. (1998). Moral theory and legal reasoning. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. London: Routledge Publishers.

Lyons, D. (1965). Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism, Sydney: McGraw Hill.

Rosen, F. (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. London: Routledge Publishers.

Currently, more workers are defining themselves by their actions, and for this reason, more are spending a lot of time in the office. This situation, coupled with communication technology like instant messaging, pagers, and cell phones has given rise to workplace romances. Workplace dating is increasingly emerging as an important discussion topic in privacy laws, as courts get involved to determine the limit of employers’ regulation on the private sexual life of employees. Of interest is the utilitarian and deontological morality impact dating policies created by CartoonStock.com for their workplace.

From the utilitarian point of view, as employees work together, relationships develop amongst themselves. Therefore, modern social mores expect these employees to engage in such relations as long as they do not interfere with professional performance. Despite these ideologies, the problem is the power of CartoonStock.com to interfere with the private life of employees in cases of office romance. The right to privacy is increasingly being used by employees to protect their job positions while maintaining their office romances (Wilson & Fennel, 2003). The utilitarian reason given by such employees is their ability to maintain professionalism as they keep their private life away from the office. Additionally, employers are not expected to discriminate or discharge any employee based on office romance that occurs during non-working hours.

This deontological argument considers that it is immoral for employers to get involved in what employees do while out of the office, as it is an infringement on the right of privacy of employees (Gallo, 2008). Of importance are legal powers this line of thought has to fight the right for employees to have office romances. This situation was seen in the landmark case of Lawrence versus Texas (539.558, 2003), in which the Supreme Court judged that employees have a ‘right to be left alone’ (Gallo, 2008). The argument is that this right covers the right for consenting adults to have private sexual relations, as their liberty according to the 14^th amendment.

On the other hand, according to deontological ethics, the employer has a legitimate reason for controlling sexual relations in the workplace. This factor is driven by a concern of protecting the workplace from sexual harassment cases. Additionally, the creation of these policies is driven by the need to reduce the potential of conflicts arising, especially when sexual relations occur between a superior and subordinate. Moreover, an employer seeks to maintain a healthy working environment, which is free of frictions that arise from sour workplace relationships (Wilson & Fennel, 2003). By taking into consideration deontological thought, it is evident that the employer is morally right to create policies that prohibit and discourage workplace dating. This is because such policies prevent problems that will interfere with or reduce the productivity of the employee, their working groups, and the organization as a whole. Moreover, the reduction of productivity implies the loss of income for an employee, as they decide to resign, are fired, or experience low turnover. The organization also avoids losses like time wastage, financial loss, and reduced profit margins from low performance. Financial loss for the organization also arises from lawsuits made against it as a result of sexual harassment claims.

In the end, the research has considered utilitarian and deontological thoughts on the right of an employer to infringe on the rights to privacy for employees involved in office dating. By factoring in these ethical considerations, this paper supports the right for employers to enforce anti-dating policies. This is because this reduces the risks of occurrence of sexual harassment cases and creates a healthy working environment. Additionally, policies provide solutions to managing conflicts that arise from sour office relations and hence do not need moral condemnation.

References

Gallo, R.E. (2008). “Employment Law: The Law on Workplace Romances.” Gallo & Associates Study. Web.

Wilson, R.F. and Fennel, A.C. (2003). “Romantic relationships at work: Does privacy trump the dating police?” Chicago Defense Counsel Journal.

Introduction

In this article, Baron and Spranca argue that protected values arise from people’s 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 X’s child’s welfare and Y should care about Y’s child’s welfare, but X need have no concern either with Y’s child or with insuring that Y look out for the welfare of Y’s 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 one’s 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 Spranca’s 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 author’s experiments proved this argument by showing people’s 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.

The world of ethical sciences stands on two primary principles – consequentialism and deontological theories. Each hypothesis is divided into many subsequent branches, which form a more detailed picture of the moral teachings. There is a significant difference between the two approaches, which will be further discussed in the paper. Summarily, consequentialism mainly judges the moral worth of actions results, while deontological ethics focus more on the nature of the acts as a whole.

When talking about consequentialism, this principle evokes biased thoughts in my head. It is simple in the core theory believing that normative properties only depend on consequences (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). When I reflected on it, I realized that this historical theory was embedded in us as children, when parents talked about what would be the consequences of a particular action. Consequentialism is built around the belief that what is best is whatever makes our world or at least our lives better, emphasizing that the past cannot be changed. To some extent, I relate to this theory; however, the morality of actions does not depend on the act’s outcomes, rather a combination of a deed, its the intention, and then the result.

The most well-known branch of the consequentialism theory is utilitarianism. This morality approach was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who described it as a form of comparison of the action’s consequence utility and followed a goal of bringing happiness to as many people as possible (LaFolette, 2007). Personally, this method does not fully represent my way of thinking, as utilitarianism concentrates entirely on the ending result of the actions, justifying or ignoring the means of how it is done.

Despite that the beliefs of the theory to be absurd in a way, consequentialism may explain some conventional humane institutions. People tend to presume that they need to do good when they can; therefore, any ethical constraints or moral choices must be determined and added to the theory’s just reasoning (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). In case objections are absent for anything beyond the consequences, they may be the determinant of the rightful morality of an action, which is the foundation of the consequentialism theory. Nevertheless, my personal beliefs do not tend to lean towards this theory, although I do not disavow it either.

The deontological theories correspond to my personal values more, as they focus on the morality of the actions. The main principles of this hypothesis rely on the ethical rules based on which the acts are judged. Contemporary philosophy tractates deontology as a set of normative standards, which determine what is right or wrong, forbidden, or permitted (Alexander & Moore, 2016). The theory provides people with a guide of what they ought to do, assesses their choices, and defines what kind of person they are.

Compared to consequentialism, deontological theories judge the morality of actions, by certain criteria of right or wrong, rather than depending on the outcomes of an act. For that reason, I lean more towards this hypothesis, because one cannot justify the actions only by the moral result of it, disregarding whatever means were used to complete it. Some choices simply cannot be explained by their effects, because they are morally forbidden, no matter how good their consequences are.

Therefore, my personal beliefs correspond more with the deontological theories, as I am a believer in set moral values that bring together the community and keep it organized. Without the assessment of actions virtue, the world would turn into chaos, where the means would be justified, and the morals would be disregarded. Undoubtedly, it is impossible to constantly adhere to the “right” actions; however, such norms contribute to society’s overall organizations.

References

Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological ethics. Stanford.Edu.

LaFolette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. Stanford.Edu.

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 society’s 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

Problematic or controversial situations often challenge people’s morals as they require difficult decision-making. A moral dilemma refers to a scenario where the choice between two opposite possibilities is equally challenging (Savulescu and Wilkinson 70). To address such issues, various ethical theories can be implemented, such as consequentialism or deontology. These approaches differ in their essence as they are based on opposite perspectives on life: individual-centered and society-centered (Savulescu and Wilkinson 70). In deontology, the outcomes and consequences may not justify the means to achieve a goal, while in consequentialism, the results determine the means, and significant benefit is expected for the greatest possible number of people. In this regard, I can discuss a recent ethical dilemma that I faced. I was walking down the street when I saw several banknotes near an empty bus stop. The road was empty, and it would be impossible to identify the owner of the cash. At the same time, no one would likely know if I wanted to pocket the money. This essay aims to discuss the moral choice I faced, analyzing it from the perspectives of consequentialism and deontology.

The Perspective of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)

To analyze the given dilemma from the point of view of utilitarianism, it is necessary to define this approach and its core principles. According to Portmore, consequentialist moral theory, with utilitarianism as its main version, “takes the good to be primary and identifies right action as action that promotes value” (380). In this regard, the purpose of an act becomes the defining element of moral evaluation. Such an approach resonates with the theories of Betham and Mill, who believed in the importance of the greatest benefit to as many people as possible in a particular scenario (Portmore 17). The degree of harm should also be evaluated during the decision-making process.

In my case, applying the utilitarianist perspective would require me to consider the benefits and disadvantages caused by my choice regarding money. I could not identify the owner of the money as there was no card or contact information, and I could not know who had actually lost the banknotes. I could try to find the person who owned the money but the chances for success were low as there was no one nearby. Moreover, some people might use the situation to their benefit and lie about being the owner. In turn, pocketing the money would benefit me at the expense of the person who had lost it and can hardly be identified. Another alternative would be to pick up the banknotes and donate them to charity, which would follow the principle of the greatest benefit and least harm. In doing so, I would not act selfishly, but I would still handle someone else’s money as if it was mine, which is morally wrong. For instance, the owner might realize their mistake and search for the banknotes, which would not be there if I took and donated them.

In this regard, two different types of consequentialism should be discussed. Act utilitarianism refers to an ethical approach based on the idea of choosing the most useful option for most people (Savulescu and Wilkinson 75). From this perspective, donating the money would be the most appropriate decision as it allows for helping the vulnerable population. Alternatively, rule utilitarianism focuses on following the rules to achieve the most happiness possible (Savulescu and Wilkinson 75). In this regard, the correct action would be to bring the money to the police. Overall, the consequentialist or utilitarian perspective on the given moral dilemma allows for various activities.

The Perspective of Deontology (Emmanuel Kant)

Deontology is the exact opposite of utilitarianism when it comes to defining its core principles and concepts. When evaluating actions, this theory takes into account not only the consequences but also the motives, intentions, and means for the implementation of a certain act (García 12). In this regard, the notions of obligations and rights are applicable to the assessment of people’s actions, regardless of the benefits that they generate. This ethical theory is centered around the principles of duty, dignity, and good will, which are essential for Emmanuel Kant (Garcia 12). Deontology does not believe in the idea of the result justifying the means. On the contrary, deontologists argue that if a moral rule can be violated by one person in a given scenario, it can be broken by everyone else (García 35). Therefore, ethical obligations cannot function with such an approach when rules are not followed.

In the given scenario, applying Kant’s point of view would mean that I should follow the rules and do my duty to return the money to the owner. As per Kant, one fundamental moral principle exists and requires individuals to always consider other people as ends, not as means (García 35). This principle is a practical imperative, and it focuses on human behavior and intentions rather than on the consequences of certain actions. Similarly, the categorical imperative emphasizes the moral law that is not defined by any end goal (García 35). The imperative is the unconditional basis of all ethics and the foundation for an objective principle that directs human will and guides individuals’ actions. Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology does not require any weighing of the costs and benefits of a situation, eliminating subjectivity and uncertainty.

At the same time, Kant’s approach considers the fact that people often cannot control the situation and multiple associated factors completely. External obstacles can affect the problem and its outcomes in numerous ways (Garcia 36). As a consequence, the actual result of one’s action can differ significantly from the intended one. For instance, if I turn to the police, the officer might pocket the money themselves, which would nullify the beneficial effect of following my moral duty. However, as per utilitarianism, such a negative result can be justified as long as the cause of the adverse effect is not caused by my intention but by uncontrollable external factors (Garcia 36). As can be seen, a deontological perspective on the selected issue is based on the principle of moral duty and good will.

Conclusion

To conclude, both utilitarianism and deontology provide a foundation for moral judgment based on different principles and values. The use of the utilitarianist approach for my ethical dilemma requires me to consider the consequences of my action and to act to generate the most benefit for society. The strengths of this theory include focusing on humanity and the needs of people in need, as well as causing the least harm possible. At the same time, its weaknesses are an unrealistic approach and a lack of predictability of the outcomes of the decision made. The deontologist approach requires me to act in accordance with moral rules and obligations before society. This perspective’s advantages are certainty and a clear foundation for working in accordance with regulations. However, in my dilemma, deontology does not consider the outcomes of my actions and can cause a paradox when someone else pockets the money.

Works Cited

García, Esther V. Ethics, Law and Professional Deontology. ESIC Editorial, 2021.

Portmore, Douglas W., editor. The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism. Oxford UP, 2020.

Savulescu, Julian, and Dominic Wilkinson. “Consequentialism and the Law in Medicine.” Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law, edited by de Campos Thana C., et al., Oxford UP, 2019, pp. 68-87.

Introduction

Pretexting is a criminal offence of infringing the privacy of a person or a company through impersonation to obtain private information for personal interests. Usually, pretexters mislead their victims to disclose sensitive and private information with the intention of using the information for maligning or impersonation. Since companies have private information that they do not want to share with media and other companies, they are prone to pretexting. For example, the chairperson of Hewlett-Packards (HP), Patricia Dunn, could not understand how information from her company was leaking to the media.

According to Kaplan (2006), Patricia Dunn became angry when she realized that some members of the board had been leaking information to the media. Consequently, she planned to conduct an investigation to establish the identity of the involved perpetrators (p.40). When Mark Hurd joined HP as the chief executive director, Patricia Dunn felt uneasy, and she consequently schemed to investigate his director’s records and interactions with other companies, including the media, to establish the source of the leakage, which seemed to threaten the privacy of HP. Thus, since pretexting is a criminal offence, this essay argues from the utilitarian and deontological perspectives that, HP management should have forced Patricia Dunn to resign.

Utilitarian Perspective

According to ethical theory of utilitarianism, one should only act to promote pleasure and minimize pain to the greatest number of people. In essence, an action is ethical if its consequences generate greatest benefits to many people. Thus, in the case of pretexting, Patricia Dunn was after selfish interests of maligning board of directors. Being angered by the continued leakage of information from HP, Patricia Dunn plotted to spy phone records and emails of the board members to establish the identity of people who leaked sensitive information of HP to the media.

According to Kaplan (2006), Patricia Dunn confessed that Hp had been spying its members of the board since 2005 after having personal conflict with Tom Perkins (p.40). Hence, from the utilitarian perspective, Patricia Dunn wanted to achieve personal interests by spying how the board of directors interacted with other companies and media. Therefore, spying on the directors had no benefits to the board, except Patricia Dunn who wanted to malign the board members; therefore, the HP management should have compelled her to resign because she pursued personal interests at the expense of members’ privacy.

Patricia Dunn has been concentrating on management and regulatory issues that HP is facing since she wanted to create a board driven by process and not personality. Given that the problem, which the board experienced, was leakage of sensitive information, Patricia Dunn thought the best way to curb it was through pretexting. From the utilitarian perspective, management and regulatory issues that Patricia Dunn was grappling with had no significant importance to board or HP. Arrival of new chief executive direction, Mark Hurd made Patricia Dunn feel uneasy since she wanted more powers to control not only the board, but also the whole company.

Kaplan (2006) argues that, Patrician Dunn concentrated on pointing inconsistencies that existed in Corporate Directors Handbook and HP’s by laws, which became dominant agenda in board meetings (p.40). Patricia Dunn brought the discussion of the inconsistencies to control directors and chief executive officer, for she was the chairperson. Hence, the scheme of pretexting did not benefit the company but rather Patricia Dunn. Hence, HP management should have forced Patricia Dunn to resign for he used her position to advocates for selfish interests rather than interests of the company.

Moreover, Patricia Dunn perceived that HP’s problems emanated from the media rather than from the company. Hence, she thought that an effective way of reducing HP’s problems is by controlling leakage of information into the media. According to Kaplan (2006), realizing that information leakage arouses emotions and triggers conflicts in company, Patricia Dunn hired security experts to conduct investigations by spying phone records of journalists and board of directors (p.40).

Since pretexting benefited Patricia Dunn in a bid to keep her secrets regarding the company, it denies the public from knowing and accessing reliable information about the company. Thus, from the utilitarian perspective, it is unethical for Patrician Dunn to conduct pretexting and prevent greater number of public from accessing invaluable information of the company. Hence, HP management should have compelled her to resign because she concentrated on her interests without considering public interests.

Deontological Perspective

Deontological theory of ethics perceives morality of human actions from the point of adherence to rules and regulations. In this case, actions of Patrician that led to pretexting are unethical because they are against individuals rights to privacy. An individual has the inalienable right to privacy no matter what circumstance of employment.

Despite the fact Patricia Dunn was intending to protect secrets of the company, she violated individual’s rights to privacy by allowing security experts to spy phone records of both journalists and board of directors. According to Kaplan, Tom Perkins termed pretexting as unethical, illegal and without any importance to the company (p.40). Therefore, Patricia Dunn is guilty of hiring security experts to conduct pretexting, which infringes individual privacy; hence, she should have resigned and faced charges.

Additionally, HP management should have compelled Patricia Dunn to resign because she acted contrary to company’s regulation and priority. As a chairperson, Patricia Dunn should have focused her energies on planning and executing activities that are of priority to the company, but she only concentrated on spying board of directors and journalists with a view of preventing leakage of information. Corporate regulations do not deny media from accessing information or writing about a company because they support freedom of the press.

Kaplan (2006) contends that, the intention of pretexting does not matter because the outcome is criminal charges (p.40). Criminal charges of pretexting do not only violate an individual’s rights, but also corporate regulations. Corporate watchdogs had given Hp high marks for superb performance and independence, but the fraud of pretexting tainted its reputation. Therefore, since Patricia Dunn went against HP’s regulation by hiring security experts to conduct pretexting and deny media from accessing valuable information, HP management should have forced her to resign immediately when it realized her illegal actions.

Conclusion

Since pretexting is a criminal offence, HP management should have compelled Patricia Dunn to resign. Based on the utilitarian perspective, pretexting benefited Patricia Dunn only, for she wanted to control information and keep her secrets. In contrast, pretexting caused immense harm to the board of directors, the company, and the public, which form greater number of people. Hence, benefits of pretexting that Patrician gained do not outweigh its negative impacts on board, company and public. Regarding deontological perspective, the act of pretexting is against the individual’s rights to privacy and company’s regulation of searching information and controlling privacy. Thus, both utilitarian and deontological perspectives of ethical theories confirm that, Patricia Dunn acted unethically; hence, she should have resigned.

Reference

Kaplan, D. (2006). Suspicions and Spies in Silicon Valley: In a Business Saga, How Pattie Dunn’s Obsession with Trying to Root Out the Source of Press Reports Ended with the Covert Tracking of Directors’ Phone Records. Newsweek, 148(10), 40.

Let Justice be done though the heavens may fall. The movie Gattaca presents both a Utopia, for the genetically superior ‘valids’, and a Dystopia, for the normal average ‘invalids.’ The movie itself revolves around Vincent, an invalid who rejects the view that an invalid has no place in Gattaca, the space program. Aside from the stereotypical man against the world presentation, Vincent endures many challenges before he obtains his fulfillment in the end, the movie is also a commentary on the dangers of ‘customized’ genetically-tailored society. This paper will be a review of the movie from a deontological perspective as it will focus on the rightness or wrongness of Vincent’s actions rather than the rightness or wrongness of the consequences (Olson 343).

In the movie genetically superior ‘valids’ are the new uber-class in society, they occupy all the best jobs and top ranks because of their genetic superiority. People have long since abandoned the vagaries of natural selection in favor of creating tailor-made babies who do not have the congenital flaws of their parents. Anton is one example of this new superior class of people. His genetic superiority is obvious, compared to Vincent, who is a natural-born, he is obviously better. At age 8 he is already taller than Vincent at age 10. He has perfect eyesight while Vincent needs glasses. More importantly, he does not have the congenital heart problem Vincent has. Poor Vincent and the rest of the ‘love children’ are condemned to be the new under-class of society confined to jobs like custodian services and denied the opportunity to advance in life.

The swimming scenes between Vincent and his brother Anton are symbolic of the race between the genetically inferior and normal ‘in-valids’ and the genetically engineered ‘valids’ in virtually all the races Anton inevitably wins because he is superior in every way. Not only is he taller, stronger, and hardier than his brother he also does not have Vincent’s congenital heart problem. But in the last two occasions that they swam, the last race they had before Vincent went to live his fraudulent life to get into Gattaca, and the race after Anton discovered that Vincent was the suspected murderer, Vincent won. Vincent famously says ‘I wasn’t saving anything for the trip home’ and ‘we are closer to the other side’ when Anton asks how he could keep going. In the end, Vincent seems to have outsmarted Anton. However, to me, it was more a triumph of the human spirit over the obvious defeat of the human body. This was the director’s way of saying that even if the inferior ‘in-valid’ was, objectively speaking, inferior to the ‘valid’ the bias against them discounts the possibility of an ‘in-valid’ transcending his genetic limitations and rising to the occasion. In fact, the whole movie is about this transcendence. Vincent the inferior ‘in-valid’ succeeds in infiltrating Gattaca and becomes one of its top astronauts despite being ‘dead already’ (based on his heart condition).

In order to succeed in his dream, Vincent is forced to become a ladder climber. He an invalid ‘Valid’ Jerome Eugene Morrow, who was crippled in an accident, make a deadly trade. Vincent gets a regular supply of Jerome’s genetic material for the frequent DNA tests done at Gattaca in exchange for keeping Jerome in the lifestyle he is accustomed to. The bargain is risky but Vincent is desperate. As he says no matter how hard he studies, no matter how much he lied, no matter how hard he worked to become qualified for a job a simple Urine or blood test would reveal him for what he was an inferior.

Uma Thurman’s character Irene has a deontological duty to follow the prevailing social construct (Waller 23). Her duty-based ethics and adherence to the genetically tailored social order are so strong that she takes a sample of Jerome Eugene Morrow’s hair to be tested at a laboratory to see if he is a genetically acceptable match. She adheres because she is on the winning side of the construct of a genetic ‘valid’ the most elite segments of society are open to her. In fact, she is in Gattaca which is itself an exclusive, elitist organization where only the best ‘valids’ are allowed entry. However, she does have a heart murmur that prevents her from ascending to the stars. Her condition is considerably less severe than Vincent’s own heart problem but it never the less makes her unsuitable for space travel. Her genetic flaw and the way it prevents her from ascending to the stars is another harsh critique of the genetically engineered world. Despite being otherwise perfect, she is praised in the story as being smarter than anyone else in Gattaca, she is denied the opportunity she has worked so hard to gain.

Another commentary is her strict adherence to the eugenics policy which evaporates out of love for Jerome. Formerly a strict advocate of eugenics, when she falls in love with him suddenly the whole idea of genetic compatibility flies out the window and she consents to the match. After all, she has been maltreated by the system despite her adherence to it.

Perhaps the most significant part of the movie is the series of the scene at the end. Jerome commits suicide preferring death to the idea of continuing to live life as a parasite and a potential threat to Vincent’s success by burning himself in the incinerator that they used to eliminate Vincent’s unwanted genetic material. He no longer wishes to live because he has already reached the peak of his career and is condemned to live life as no more than a provider of ‘acceptable’ genetic material. The burning of Jerome is contrasted with the launch of the rocket ship, as the fake Jerome finally reaches for the starts fulfilling his dream, the real one ends his life by lighting his own funeral pyre. There is a Coda that presents people like Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln people who despite their genetic flaws were successful people. These people, in the movie set, would be condemned to an underclass life and would never have a chance to make the contributions they made in society.

Genetic Engineering is a science that is maturing but has yet to reach its time. To me, the movie serves as a warning to the extent that it can take place. For example, to me, it might be ok to engineer a child so that he will not get Congenital Heart Disease like Vincent. However, opening a slippery slope of further modification. Cancer-resistant genes or diabetes immunity would also sound appropriate but why stop there why not make humans all 7 feet tall or blond or blue-eyed? Once the modification begins there is no end to how far it could go. The creation of a superhuman might not be far off, the ideal man could now be engineered. But who defines what the ideal, or perfect man is? To me, genetic engineering to prevent disease and deformities might be ok. These flaws should be removed however, removing flaws opens a can of worms in that flaws might spread to skin color, or size, or other physical aspects that radical people might want to change. The eugenic discrimination in the movie might also happen in real life, after all, today Asians and African Americans still suffer discrimination of the worst sort and this discrimination is often based simply on the color of their skin. For me, it is better to keep the lid closed and trust in natural evolution. After all, Vincent got to space in the end did he not?

From a Deontological perspective, the genetic engineering of people is fine. The act of preventing disease and defect should be treated as independent of the consequences of discrimination and dehumanization it will cause. However, I disagree since the dehumanization of normal humans is a natural consequence of making a superior man. Justice (perfection) will be done. But the Heavens will definitely fall.

Works Cited

Niccol, Andrew: Gattaca 1997.

Olson, Robert G. 1967. ‘Deontological Ethics’. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan.

Waller, Bruce N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman: 23.

Korsgaard, Christine. 1998. ‘Kant on Dealing with Evil’. In James P. Sterba, Ethics: The Big Questions. Blackwell Publishing.