A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics_SharpMelissa

Consequentialism claims that humans are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences; in consequentialism, the interests of others’ is the primary focus of moral decisions (LaFollette, 2007, p.23). While rules do matter to the consequentialist, the consequentialist is more concerned with the overall outcome (LaFollette, 2007, p.24). In contrast deontologists claim that our moral obligations should drive us, no matter the consequences (LaFollette, 2007, p.24). Deontologists believe that rules play a fundamental role in morality, while consequentialists do not (LaFollette, 2007, p.23). In order to understand both theories, I summed them up in a sentence: consequentialists believe in morality with exceptions; deontologists believe in morality without exceptions.  Of course, there is more to each theory than my sentence describes, but the simplified definition helps me get the gist of each theory.

At first read, I thought I might find my beliefs housed in consequentialism; however, the more I read and understood each theory, I clearly see that I am more of a deontologist. Deontologists argue that there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others; if we only consider the consequences of our actions, we will eventually act immorally if there are no detrimental consequences (LaFollette, 2007, p.24).  It’s difficult for me to accept consequentialism as true morality if morality has exceptions. If I only focus on the consequences of my actions, does it mean that I capable of anything?  For example, if there were no consequences, it would be “okay” for me to kill someone who murdered my loved one. Without consequences, we could (would) do horrible things. How is that true morality? If consequences are the only concern, then what really makes us moral?  I believe that morality must go beyond our actions (this thought may remove me from both theories or merge the theories). While deontology emphasizes “keeping the rules”, without exception, there must be a deeper reason for rule keeping. So then, I think we must ask the question, “what’s driving our morality?”.  Do we really have a desire do/be good because it makes us feel good? Do we have a desire to do/be good for the sake others? Personally, my Christian beliefs drive my moral decisions; my beliefs also keep me grounded. As a Christian, I believe that I answer to God. In answering to God, I receive guidance from the book of my Faith, the Holy Bible. The Bible provides guidance as to how I should treat myself and others; therefore, I have a deeper reason for “keeping the rules”. Because these “rules” are also for the good others, I do not view them negatively.

Overall, I think I lean toward deontology because its principles compliment my beliefs.  Immanuel Kant noted that our good must have qualification; however, the only thing that is good without qualification is “the good will” (LaFollette, 2007, p.33). The “good will” is doing one’s responsibility because it is one’s responsibility (LaFollette, 2007, p.33). I believe that my Faith drives me to do my duty; thus, I suppose I am a deontologist.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.