Consequentialism, Deontology And Virtue Ethics

Tiffany Russell
1/27/13
Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics The philosophies of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are guidelines for decision making that utilize very different theories of how an ethical dilemma should be approached. Consequentialism is a philosophy that asks whether or not the end justifies the means. “In other words, an act and therefore a decision is ethical if its favorable consequences outweigh its negative consequences” (Brooks, 2007, p. 329). Deontology, on the other hand, uses the principle of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If you don’t want someone to lie to you, you should not lie to others (Brooks, 2007, p. 331). Virtue ethics are more inherent to the character
of the person making the decision and are considered to be the moral fiber of a person. “Dispositions that are often cited as virtues include: honesty, integrity, enlightened self-interest, compassion, fairness, impartiality, generosity, humility, and modesty” (Brooks, 2007, p. 333). In the case of a mayor trying to decide whether or not to allow a new developer to come to town because doing so will cause a loss of jobs and displaced senior citizens, the consequentialism view proposes the good of bring hundreds of jobs and economic growth outweighs the loss of a few jobs and senior center.
I believe this is an ethical business decision because it is taking into consideration the good of the entire town. The senior center can be moved to another location, whereas the new development cannot. The deontology and virtue ethics philosophy, however, propose the development not be allowed. Morally, I do not disagree, as they are stating loyalty to the senior citizens is more important than increasing revenue within the town; however, in regards to business ethics, I do not agree. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to the citizens of the town to support growth and bring new jobs for
everyone. In the scenario of Catalina falsely reporting sales, so she and the entire branch can obtain bonuses, the consequentialism philosophy proposes she lie because the benefit to the entire branch outweighs the seemingly small consequences.
Assuming there is not a code of business conduct that is enforced regarding this type of behavior, and Catalina can get away with reporting the three sales, then submitting them as cancelled, she can help all of her co-workers as well as herself. I do not feel this is an ethical action because it is dishonest and once a person is allowed to get away with something like that, they are putting themselves on a slippery slope. If it is ok to lie about 3 sales, why not lie about 6 or 8? Catalina needs to be honest and report her actual sales, which also agrees with the deontology and virtue ethics philosophies. Deontology says she should not report the sales because it is lying, and essentially, if she does not want her company to lie to her, she should not lie to them. Virtue ethics places more emphasis on Catalina’s over all character by expecting honesty to be a basic part of who she is. If she lives her life honestly, the decision is an easy one to
make. The scenario involving Malcolm is a bit more difficult to judge, because we don’t know the whole story. Given what is known, the ethical choice would be to tell the other roommate what he saw, so he can make his own decision regarding whether or not he wants to continue living there. He should also speak with the roommate involved in the incident to find out whether or not there is more to the story. It is possible the boy is in some kind of trouble, and he doesn’t know how to get out of it, or a family member could have a serious illness and the substances were black market prescriptions that couldn’t be afforded otherwise. There are many scenarios that could make matters worse if Malcolm goes straight to the police without having all of the information. If Malcolm is unable to obtain a suitable explanation, he needs to move out and report the incident to authorities because he could be endangering his life or the life of others by not telling. The consequentialism philosophy tells us the end consequences do not justify telling due to the potential danger to others; however, I believe that is part of why Malcolm should at the very least, tell the other roommate. Deontology supports reporting the incident to authorities because it is his moral obligation to do so. If he does not want to live with suspicious and potentially dangerous activity, he should not subject others to it. I believe there is a gray area, in this situation, that allows a person to act morally and responsibly, which is to talk to the friend first to see if there is more to the story. I feel the moral obligation lies in trying to help the friend before condemning him. Virtue ethics is very similar, but the decision is based upon showing a strong character by being courageous. In my opinion, it is more courageous to try and help a friend in need and giving someone the benefit of the doubt, than it is to run and tattle without the entire story. If Malcolm were to discover the other roommate is involved in drugs due to his own greed or irresponsibility, it is an easy choice to report him to the police. If Malcolm finds out the roommate is involved in drugs because he fears for his family’s safety or because he is helping a loved one find comfort, Malcolm should help him to report the situation and find another solution to the problems.

REFERENCE PAGE

Brooks, L. J. (2007). Business & professional ethics for directors, executives, & accountants (4th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.