Making Ethical Decisions and Choices - Essay Example

Running Head Ethical Dilemma Ethical Dilemma Ethical decisions and choices are made by people in every day. Ay work and at home, people have tochoose between alternatives and find the best solutions in difficult life situations. As people increasingly under public scrutiny, they find themselves exposed to complex ethical issues. There are many ethical issues with which society struggles and points to ethical systems as tools that can be used to solve ethical dilemmas. By understanding the rational methods by which ethical issues may be examined, the society is better prepared to cope with complex ethical situations that are likely to arise in the professional working environment. Clearly, those who remain in good standing achieve many benefits, including income and public recognition. These things are rewards for the achievement and maintenance of high moral and ethical standards. The esteem that derives from membership in an elite group makes professional status desirable. In order to choose the best solutions to the problems identified in two cases, it is important to apply ethical theories and moral standards. As a passenger in version 1, I would pull the lever and save lives of 5 people. This decision is based on utilitarianism referred to by some as the consequentialist ethical theory. It is expressed in the form that asserts that people should always act so as to produce the greatest ratio of good to evil for everyone. as the utilitarian, I believe that when choosing between two actions, the one that produces the greatest net happiness should be the one chosen (Donaldson et al. 2002). Where most of them disagree with one another is in the area of how this principle should be applied. There are also several stated weaknesses in this concept. It ignores actions that appear to be wrong in themselves; it espouses the concept that the end justifies the means; the principles may come into conflict with that of justice seems to associate justice with efficiency rather than fair play); and it is extremely difficult to formulate and establish satisfactory rules of application (Bentham 2000). I would pull the lever because it is ethical to save lives of people and choose the decision which benefits the majority. Utilitarianism manifests itself in two major forms. The stronger of the two is so-called act-utilitarianism. Under this system, the moral agent considers the consequences of only the action under consideration. The second system is called rule-utilitarianism. Here the moral agent considers a set of rules by which life should be lived. The basis of accepting or rejecting a rule is whether the consequences of everyone following the rule will result in the maximum probable good consequences. Rule-utilitarianism may be regarded as a weaker form of utilitarianism than act-utilitarianism. A rule-utilitarian, when confronted with a situation in which he believes that abiding by the rule will not in the present case be most beneficial, will simply modify the rule. Great disagreement may be generated over which consequences are in fact "good," which consequences should receive greater or lesser weight, and what probability should be assigned to different future consequences. Modern critics of utilitarianism also note that ultimately utilitarianism must seek non-utilitarian answers on assigning boundaries and values around the measurement of activities and values associated with the calculation of utilitarian systems. All these matters serve to cause what appears to be an exceptionally practical system to become less and less practical (Donaldson et al. 2002). As a passenger in version 2, I would not push the person and let him die. These actions would be considered as intentional killing of person and could lead to imprisonment. In terms of deontological ethics, actions should be based on rule-based morality. The approach considers an action as morally right if it conforms with a proper moral rule. An action that violates the rule but results in beneficial actions is still considered wrong. The sources of the rule could be either theological in the sense that the actions are stipulated as moral by a religion, or societal in the sense that they are the result of a social consensus as to whether they are right or wrong. The deontological perspective has its share of critics. With respect to Kant's ideas, moralists have pointed out that both the categorical imperative and the practical imperative can clash with human welfare and even prescribe actions that lead to human suffering. For example, the strict Kantian would tell the truth to the police man, reasoning that the action of telling a lie is wrong per se and that any perceived consequences should not be considered. Ross's point of view is less vulnerable to this criticism but is subject to the weakness of answering the question of the source of the prima facie duties and whether there might be more prima facie duties. In other words, the moral agent might reasonably ask why she should accept Ross's duties as her own. On the other hand, the deontological view concentrates upon the action itself. The thrust for the moral agent is to do his duty. Out of this comes rights for both himself and for others in society. Finally, the goal of a more ethical society is reached because in the ideal everyone is doing his duty (McMahan 2003). I choose ethical decisions and approaches followed by many people as they reflect present day morality and social ethical values. Personally, I suppose that we should not introduce in natural course of events trying to change the world around us. I mean that if a person is destined to die, he/she will die in other circumstances even if we pull the lever and save these 5 people. In genera, the focus upon the differences between the two systems often obscures the fact that much of the time the two views will lead to the same decision with respect to an ethical issue, Critics consider a modern day phenomenon, sexual abuse of moral duties, and discover how the seemingly opposite views of ethics can and do arrive at the same conclusion with respect to the ethics involved. Both utilitarianism and deontologism may be criticized in that neither seems to by itself describe the "ethics" found in today's society. Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that most of us are not ethical theorists, and we therefore borrow portions of our ethical responses from both major systems. Another possibility is that another system may better describe the reality of ethics (Radest 2000). Also, any person would push a large man over the bridge because these actions would be considered as intentional killing and a person would be punished. In any situation, the person should act as an impartial judge. A sense of loyalty to others, and to the body politic, means that we must respect the principles of collaboration, especially the deontological dictum never to treat others as means to our own ends. It also means that we must calculate the consequences of our actions with a mind toward maximizing the good for the many, and not just for ourselves. This sense of moral community, of course, is the basis of most organized religions, though one need have no special proclivity toward orthodoxy in order to develop a sense of social responsibility. Though independence and objectivity are basic to practice, the sources of data--and thus the bases for interpretation--most often reside with the client (Radest 2000). In sum, the trolley problem involves both ethical and moral considerations important for every individual. Conflicts of moral duty come in various shapes, sizes, and intensities. We cannot anticipate all such problems. But what such conflicts have in common is both situational and philosophical. By situational we mean that a personal moral dilemma is experienced by the professional accountant. She is faced with a concern and, often, a hardchoice situation. By philosophical we mean that thinking about essentials--goals, purposes, reasons--is ignited by the moral conflict. Confronting ethical dilemmas in professional accounting is a real task. The scenario clearly depicts a conflict between professional responsibilities (auditing activities for the real estate firm) and personal morality (a desire to see that the homelessness problem is solved or, at the very least, does not increase). Out life choice are inflamed by and depends upon strict ethical rules and principles. Both deontological ethics and utilitarianism determine the main rules of conduct. Deontological ethics and utilitarianism are the core of the morality helping employees to determine the right and wrong actions and behave ethically in difficult situations. References Bentham, J. (2000). Deontology; or, The Science of Morality. BookSurge Publishing. Donaldson, T., et al. (2002). Ethical Issues in Business, 7th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McMahan, J. (2003). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford University Press. Radest, H. B. (2000). From Clinic to Classroom: Medical Ethics and Moral Education. Praeger Publishers. Read More