As we wrapped up our discussion of ethical frameworks this week, it struck me that while Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory were are "logically viable," none of them particularly captured the way I (and most others, I suspect) make ethical decisions. Sure, I often weigh the benefits of a moral decision against the costs, a la Utilitarianism; I am also not immune to the pressure to act with good will towards my fellow rational beings, as in Kant's categorical imperative; and yes, it's true, I also feel a certain moral obligation to follow the rules set down by the society I live in, as social contract theory would have me. Alas, none of these theories can solely explain the thought process I hope most of us go through when we make ethical decisions.
Thus, I was pleased that the interview with James Moor in the book included an overview of his Just Consequentialism. It seems, from his brief summary, that this theory combines aspects of the other three covered in the chapter in a multi-step decision process. It seems to me that by allowing for examination of "duties, rights, and consequences" of a given decision, one should arrive at a better understanding of the moral implications thereof than he would by only considering one of those aspects. I grant, as does Moor, that this method may leave a significant gray area because of person to person differences in valuing duties, rights, and consequences. I think, however, that the understanding gained by considering issues from all three angles is worth the gray area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your comment that none of the theories we read about can solely explain the thought process we go through when we make ethical decisions. Everyone is different and makes decisions differently. I also believe that while we do act similarly in similar situations, we do not always act the same in every situation which also makes it hard to make theories based on how each individual makes ethical decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn the journalism school we take a media ethics course that starts with a discussion of the same basic ethical decision making frameworks that we've discussed here. We learned to use multiple ethical frameworks when assessing a dilemma—sort of lining them up to see how each philosopher/school of philosophy would hypothetically reason through and respond to the situation. I like that because it lets you line up lots of different systems of weighing effects, duties, values, motivations etc. and seeing how they play out in affecting the end result. I think that the biggest strength to any of these frameworks is that they facilitate a thorough review of all of the different factors in an ethical dilemma, and that seems like the best way to start tackling any dilemma.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical frameworks that we are taught in class are exactly that, frameworks. These theories represent attempts by individuals to strip down ethical dilemmas and simplify the way we deal with them. There will always be various circumstances that skew these frameworks and ultimately our dealings with them.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I do like Moor's theory of Just Consequentialism and think it is certainly more applicable to the extenuating circumstances of everyday life.
I completely agree with everyone that one philosopher's framework does not serve as a uniform guideline for all possible ethical dilemmas one will find him or herself in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do have to question switching between multiple frameworks at the convenience of the individual. When one does not want to tell the truth, one would not follow Kant's categorical imperative because he believes lying is wrong. However, in another situation Kantian ethics may prove helpful to the situation.
At what point do we conveniently switch frameworks to avoid difficult situations and to then rationalize our behavior?
I agree that none of the theories we covered can be used exclusively to reach the right conclusion in every situation. I do feel, however, that it is easy to pick holes in these philosophers theories and we may not give enough credit to what it is they are actually trying to do.
ReplyDeleteKant's categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism may indeed be over-simplified frameworks, as penn e. describes them, with little practical application to everyday life. So to weigh them all and combine some aspects and not others may indeed seem reasonable, but to do so is to defeat their purpose entirely. The frameworks serve to define what morality is and is not. They are not compatible with each other. And to refute them all is to refute that definitively "right" conclusions can be reached. This leaves us with nothing more than subjective relativism, where the ethically right decision is left up to the discretion of the individual.
To say: "hey let's draw on aspects of all these views and just be okay with a little gray area" is convenient and makes everyone happy but it doesn't accomplish much. The brilliance of the classical frameworks is that they define morality without "gray area", aka without subjective relativism. So we can pick apart these frameworks all day long but until you or I can actually say what ethical right and wrong is, I think there is still a lot of merit to the original theories.
In response to NJP...
ReplyDeleteIs taking a definitive stand (no gray area) really automatically worthy of praise? Sure, Kant didn't leave any room for confusion about his moral laws, but that doesn't mean they are all that useful for solving ethical problems. Why should we praise his theory just on the basis of his taking a strong stand? Would we respect a deranged individual just because he believed 100% in the rightness of his ramblings?
This is, of course, not to suggest that Kant is deranged, or even unworthy of praise (he certainly is); however, I think it is a stretch to say his theory has a lot of merit just because it is so unyielding.
In response to WA, Kant's theory is only helpful because it is unyielding. He has a definitive idea of morality, that people can choose to follow or not. Critics have issues with the fact that he doesn't take into consideration the results, but that just isn't part of his theory. If he said well, sometimes this could possibly work, then he wouldn't have any basis for talking about morality.
ReplyDeleteIf we're discussing the importance of logic in ethics, combining various approaches can create gray areas which defies logic. I don't agree with any particular mode of ethics and see the value of mixing and matching to personalize one's own code of ethics.
ReplyDeleteYet, if we want to stick to ethics, gray area should not be inclueded because it is not logical nor is it consistent.
After reviewing all of the ethical theories it makes it hard for any individual to consider the decisions we make daily the moral ones. I personally think its hard when you look at utilitarianism because its hard to define a good action and who it directly is affecting. Act utilitarianism states an action is good if it benefits someone; an action is bad if it harms someone...I can relate that when I am trying to make a decision I am not trying to harm anyone, but I think some of the times people in society, including myself makes decisions that benefit us individually. If you are in a situation that it might benefit you and hurt someone else or benefit them and hurt you..what would you do? Most people would choose the one that benefits themselves. What is the best way to determine if something is ethical considering most of us agree that all these classical theories are not ways we make decisions everyday.
ReplyDeleteKant’s approach of taking a definitive stand and negating the possibility of a gray area may be appropriate for some moral laws; however, there is certainly not a cookie-cutter mold for all situations. As many others have previously stated, the moral laws created by these praised theorists only create a framework for ethical decision making. It is imperative to take all methods into account to truly arrive at the best possible solution. While combining such theories may create additional ‘gray area’ a foundation is then set to contemplate all solutions and use personal judgment accordingly. As the previous post illuminates, personal judgment most commonly leads to decisions based on individual gain. This being said the knowledge of ethical theories aid decision making for the betterment of society even if it is not utilized 100% of the time.
ReplyDeleteI think that Katelyn's view on act utilitarianism is worth discussing and very interesting. It is one of those things like when people talk about how it is selfish if you do a good deed because you are benefiting yourself in the end. However, that being said, is there a such thing as an actual good deed? I think that if you're not doing the "good deed" for altruistic reasons and purely for self gain then it's not a good deed! This relates to the moral aspect in making ethical decisions that you all are talking about. Just like utilitarianism this concept of selfless good deeds makes it hard to define a good action and who it is directly benefiting most, the good deed giver or the good deed taker?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea that it is very rare for anyone to make decisions through the sole process of one of the discussed theories; as said many times above, people make decisions for all sorts of different ethical reasons. Like Ellison, I believe that ethical decision making cannot be explained by a single theory. There are over 6 billion people in this world, all effected by various cultures, beliefs, experiences, teachings, etc. and no one mind thinks alike or goes through these same things. It almost takes decision making back to nature vs. nurture, what brings the person or decision maker to be who they are or think and decide the way they do. Why do serial killers make decisions the way they do?
ReplyDelete