Balancing Ethical Theories: Discussing Consequentialism and Deontology
Labels are constricting.
Whether at work, church, family gatherings, or relaxing at home with my family,
labeling myself as either a Republican or a Democrat, a northerner or a
southerner, or one who likes American cars or foreign cars seems to fence me
in. I like to think of myself as an
independent thinker who approaches issues while embracing the best of both worlds. In similar fashion, studying the two primary
approaches to ethical decision making—consequentialism and deontology—have
exposed me to both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each. Like my political, geographical, and
automotive affiliation, I find myself operating in both wheelhouses.
When moral theorizing, individuals either lean toward a consequentialist
view that focuses primarily on the consequences of our actions or a deontological
view that focuses on adhering to rules and principles independent of
consequences. These views have shaped
much of the world of ethics today. In The Practice of Ethics, LaFollette
(2007) defines the two as, “Consequentialism states we should choose the
available actions with the best overall consequences, while deontology states
that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that
these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (p. 23).
As leaders, understanding these theories is critical to
one’s convictions, perspectives, and leadership influence. Gary Yukl (2010) said, “Higher levels of
management have a greater number and variety of activities to be coordinated,
the complexity of relationships that need to be understood and managed is
greater, and the problems that need to be solved are more unique and
ill-defined” (p. 216). Ethical issues
permeate every facet of an organization.
To develop one’s leadership style, it is important to examine whether
one makes decisions based on potential consequences or whether they follow a
strict rule-based philosophy. Knowing
one’s perspective toward an ethical dilemma can improve how organizational
decisions are made.
Leaders operating at a higher level of development are
usually regarded as more ethical than those at a lower level of
development. Those with a strong moral
self-identity are normally motivated to act in ways that are consistent with
ethical values and beliefs (Yukl, 2010).
In order to make the best decision possible when confronted with an
ethical dilemma, leaders should have a basic understanding of the two
theories. The following explanations are
found in LaFollette’s textbook, The
Practice of Ethics.
First, let’s look at consequentialism. These folks believe that we are morally
obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences. This motivation is common throughout all aspects
of leadership. Whether creating a
business plan, a church program, or devising a parenting strategy, leaders
consider the end result when formulating possible decisions. The consequentialist approach directs leaders
to choose paths with the best overall consequences for all interested parties.
When determining which consequences are most important, the
consequentialist must consider three questions.
First, which consequences are morally relevant? In other words, there are often innumerable
consequences surrounding a decision; some are trivial whereas others are
significant. Leaders must consider only
those consequences relevant to the outcome and the people involved. Secondly, how much weight should each
consequence be given? The weight is the
product of the nature of the interests it affect, the number of interests
affected, and their respective probabilities.
And thirdly, how should they use these considerations when
deliberating? For each action, the
leader must decide which alternative has the best overall consequence.
Another aspect of consequentialism is utilitarianism. In this theory, the sole consequence that is
sought is happiness. These folks make
decisions based on what will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. LaFollete (2007) said,
“The tendency to see consequences narrowly, especially when our interest is at
stake, are a factor any clear thinking consequentialist must acknowledge and
seek to counter” (p. 27).
Along with LaFollete’s explanation of the theory of
consequentialism, Yukl (2010) highlighted, “Judgments about the ethics of a
particular decision or action usually take into account the purpose (ends), the
extent to which behavior is consistent with moral standards (means), and the
consequences for self and others (outcomes).
These three criteria are usually considered in relation to each other,
and a common issue is the extent to which the ends justify the means” (p. 409).
The second theory of ethical decision making is known as deontology. This is the theory that focuses primarily on
following rules. Growing up, we were
regularly taught what to do and what not to do.
In fact, most of our developmental stages of life were filled with “do’s
and don’t” and that is what we remembered—especially when it was reinforced
with pain!
Though “rule-following” resonates with all of us, it can
cause problems as well. Focusing solely
on the rules without taking the consequences into consideration can cause
additional problems down the road. The
deontologist must learn to give consequences the appropriate moral weight when
considering what path to choose or what decision to make.
One of the key points of the deontologist is that “morality
is a set of moral rules, some of which are weightier than others” (p. 31). The goal is to know which are weightier and by
how much. In these situations, leaders
must have core principles prioritized within their thought process. For example, “Domestic animals are very
important and should be cared for exceptionally well. However, they are not as important as
humans.” While that sounds elementary,
there are many people who consider their pets equal to people. True, your pets are important, however they
should not be held in higher esteem than a human life. Yet, many people in our society would rebuff
this claim with great intensity. Case in
point: Wealthy people investing thousands of dollars in dog houses, dog food,
and even doggy diamonds. All the while,
homeless people shuffle outside their gated community.
One of the key voices of the deontological theory is
Immanuel Kant. He stresses the important
of the “good will” in which he refers to as “doing one’s duty because it is
one’s duty.” Kant is famous for his
categorical imperative as well. In this
he believes the weight of what we do lies on the antecedent “if.” In other words, certain imperatives are
binding only on those who want to achieve the goal specified in the phrase.
Like ethics, there are numerous theories on
leadership. One of the most prominent is
known as situational leadership.
Meaning, the best style of leadership is what the situation calls
for. In many ways, this is true of the
consequentialist and deontological theories of ethics as well. Simply focusing on producing the best
consequences causes decision makers to miss the relevant factors of the
moment. Not every decision can be made
to produce a “sunny” consequence. Also,
blindly following a set of rules can be misguided as well. Evaluating the situation in light of an
individual’s core values and principles is the most effective way to deal with
ethical dilemmas. Moreover, the most
opportune time to develop one’s values is not “in the moment” of an ethical
decision; but rather, beforehand when there is time to discuss and identify why
you believe what you believe. Ethical
dilemmas should never dictate what you believe. Rather, they should confirm
what you’ve already professed to believe.
Balancing the tension between rules and consequences is an
art leaders must learn. Lastly, John Maxwell
(2003) said, “Decisions, not conditions, determine your ethics” (p. 47). He explained, “People of poor character tend
to blame their choices on circumstances. Ethical people make good choices regardless of
circumstances. If they make enough good
choices, they begin to create better conditions for themselves” (p. 47).
Steve
References:
LaFollette,
H. (2007). The practice of ethics.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Maxwell,
J. (2003). Ethics 101. New York, NY:
Center Street.
Yukl, G.
(2010). Leadership in organizations.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment