- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
- Posts
Can anybody give a good example of Deontology?
I understand consequentalist as making moral judgements based upon their outcomes as ‘right or wrong’.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
Hi, according to me, it would be that Lying is immoral, as it passes the 3 tests,
1. it is universally acceptable,
2. it takes into account human dignity, and
3. it is consistent.
(correct me if am wrong)Thanks!
So could another example be to arrive on time for a meeting because it is one’s duty to do so?
However, if this person was running late, (say driving in a car to make the meeting), would it be their duty to speed and break the road traffic laws, or would their deontology ethics restrict them to speed also?
Also, If the speed limit was say 20 miles per hour in the motorway, would it be universally acceptable to break the law under the basis that the law is not universally acceptable?
Deontology:
Definition: – it is non-consequentialist theory; in this respect, the principle or motivation is the most important in the decision making. An action can only be deemed right or wrong when the morals for taking that action are known.
An action is deemed right if it satisfied 3 tests:
1. Consistency: An action is right if everyone can follow the same underlying principle; such as lying is not deemed right, if it is right, there is no universal concept of truth.
2. Human dignity: remember all the needs and expectations of the others; such as animal testing is wrong, because animal has the right to be alive;
3. Universality: an action is deemed as right when viewed by others not by the person who is undertaking the task;Hope the above explanation helps.
Good luck for your exam.
A Company uses child labor as it’s cheaper.
The Deontological Approach would say that this is not ethical. Firstly it impedes on the dignity of the child. A child has a right to be in education and he would be if he was not working for the company. Secondly the majority of opinion would be against this sort of action. This is true as many legal constitutions make such an action illegal. Therefore it cannot be deemed to be Consistent. Finally it isn’t universal. The company wouldn’t want this news released in the press as they know most people would not agree and probably form protests etc…
If, however you applied the Teleological approach then you could argue that Child labor is ethical if say it gives the child the money needed to provide food for its family (assuming the parents don’t work etc…)
In respect to your example going 30mph on a 20mph motorway would be ethical, even if it wasn’t legal.
OMG, a lot of this ethical theory seems overlapping and a bit contradictory….but I think I just haven’t got to grips with it properly.
In theory, Deontology is supposed to be about universal, absolute principles, and not be concerned with the outcome/consequences.
But as richieinspain showed…even when applying the 3 Deontology/Kant principles, you kinda end up considering the conseqences in order to decide if the action is ethical (ie. considering whether your action respects the human dignity of others automatically requires you to first consider how your action impacts on their human dignity…ie. its consequences.) It seems alright in theory, but when you start applying it, it all seems contradictory…..but maybe that’s where Pluralism comes in!
Richieinspain’s example of the Deontolgy seemed a good one to me.
Teleologically…well I’m lost!
My book says there are 2 types of Teleology…
Utilitarianism – the greatest good for the greatest number.
or
Egoism – it is justified if it satsfies my own short-term desires, or my long-term interests.The Utilitarianism is straightforward…but the Egoism sounds like a licence to do whatever you feel like….or is that the point?
But don’t forget that Egoism also considers society. For example it is ethical for me to produce products. Deep down this benefits me profit wise but the egoistic argument must be that it also benefits society otherwise I wouldn’t do it.
Ahh,
So with Egoism, do you mean that you might decide to act in an ethical way because it makes you feel good about yourself, and therefore an unexpected consequence is that society also benefits, but the real motivation for my choice was that I wanted to make myself feel good about myself?
Or have I got that wrong?
Or do you mean that I might make a decision that profits me, but the two consequences might be
I make proftt = my intended consequence
society benefits = the uninteded consequence?Or do you mean I would lie about it…and make the decision primarily to profit myself, but argue that I’d really done it because it was ethical to society?
I’m not really sure….
the article at the following link explains the issue on page 2:
https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/pdf/sa_july11_ethics.pdf
Read it 🙂Hi Techno,
Yes your spot on when you say;
So with Egoism, do you mean that you might decide to act in an ethical way because it makes you feel good about yourself, and therefore an unexpected consequence is that society also benefits, but the real motivation for my choice was that I wanted to make myself feel good about myself?
The idea is that of Adam Smith and the invisible hand. Acting in self interest is generally good for society as society also benefits.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.