Analysis of Ethical Systems - Admission/Application Essay Example

and Number of the Teacher’s ANALYSIS OF AN ETHICAL SYSTEM Introduction Normative ethics involves two duty-based theories: deontology and teleology. Deontology is derived from the Greek words deon, deont for duty or right and proper; and is a school of thought that considers that the means to a goal justifies the end. On the other hand, the Greek word teleos means end or purpose; thus, the moral theory of Teleology believes that the end justifies the means (Schlabach: 186). Deontological theories can be defined by their opposition to consequentialism in the fundamental determination of concepts related to morally right or wrong actions and moral values and standards. According to deontological theory, “moral values and standards cannot be determined at any level of analysis by what would promote the best outcomes or states, assessed agent-neutrally” (Darwall: 1). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to analyze the ethical system of Deontology. The historical development of Deontology, its parameters, and its characteristics will be determined. This ethical system will be applied to a Case Study. Discussion Normative ethical theories are approaches derived from the disciplines of theology and philosophy. They serve as a framework to reflect on ethical issues. These philosophical approaches attempt to provide guides to appropriate human action. Three normative ethical theories have developed. Two of them focus on the actions a person performs and are referred to as action-based theories; these are deontological and teleological theories. The third theory differs from the first two since it emphasizes the character of a person and is referred to as virtue ethics (Schlabach: 186). The Historical Development of the Ethical System of Deontology The Origin of the Term: In August 1814, the term deontology from the Greek deon meaning that which is proper, first appeared in the manuscript of Jeremy Bentham. Initially Bentham applied the theory of Deontology to the sphere of private ethics, which refers to those moral duties that are not lawfully imposed, making people do what they ought to do. It includes the several areas of private Ethics or morals, internal government and international law. A third Benthamite definition of “deontology”, which became the standard definition of the term for around one hundred years, and which may be termed the “etymological definition”, was the science of duty. It is the art and science based on doing the right and proper on each occassion (Louden: 574). A fourth Benthamite definition of ‘deontology’, which combines different aspects of the preceding three, is a utilitarian theory of moral obligation. Deontology or ethics in a wide sense is that branch of art and science whose purpose is the learning and showing to each individual the means by which the net amount of his happiness may be increased as much as possible, maximizing well-being (Louden: 576). After Bentham: In 1832, the year Bentham died, his student John Austin’s lectures were first published. Dissenting from some of the master’s more radical teachings, he believed that the divine law is the measure or test of positive law and morality. Hence, an important objective of the science of deontology is to determine the nature of the index to the tacit commands of the Deity, or the nature of the signs or proofs through which those commands may be known (Louden: 577). John Grote (1813-1866) divided moral philosophy into three sciences: aretaics, eudaimonics and deontology which included virtue and duty. Finally, a third example of the standard nineteenth century etymological usage of ‘deontology’ is from the British Liberal Party Statesman, William E. Gladstone (1809-1898), that within the theological system of Homer lay a system which may be called one of deontology, or that which ought to be, and to be done. The concept of deontology as a science of duty continued well into the twentieth century. Non-English writers had also started using the science of duty application of deontology. Very few of the authors gave Bentham the credit for coining the term (Louden: 578). Intuitionism versus Deontology: According to W.E.H. Lecky, there is a great controversy arising from the rival claims of intuition and utility. The intuitive moralists believe that the notion of right upholds a feeling of obligation, and the first principles of duties are derived from intuition. Intuitionists believed that all actions have a nature and character, some of them right and others wrong. The right-making features of acts are supposedly inherent in themselves. Contrastingly, for utilitarians, knowledge of the rightness of acts must always be inferential, because acts are made right by their consequences, and not by their intrinsic characters. Intuitionism has been used by utilitarians also, who believe that happiness is the only end of action (Louden: 579). Twentieth Century Deontology: Twentieth century British ethics, like early twentieth century British philosophy in general, is marked by an analytic and concentrated attempt to carefully sort out, identify and analyze basic questions. Moore wrote that the disagreements in Ethics are mainly due to a very simple cause, namely the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering the question that needed to be answered. His analytic approach of ideal utilitarianism strongly influenced later philosophers of a deontological outlook such as Prichard, Carritt, Broad, and Ross. The creation of twentieth century deontology can be traced to a Moorean-inspired effort in ethics. J.H. Muirhead, a philosopher who himself advocated a nonutilitarian type of teleology, has summarized both points of view (Louden: 584). C.D. Broad divided ethical theories into two classes, deontological and teleological. Deontological theories support the ethical propositions of form, while teleological theories hold that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its tendency to promote certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad. Each of these theorists in their appeals to the special nature of moral agency uphold Kant’s position that we should always act in ways to respect rational agency. However, this principle is not always adhered to by the other deontologists. A further irony in the geneology of deontology is that though the English have brought about changes in the geneology of deontology, Kant, the German philosopher is always upheld as the paradigmatic deontologist. In the actual theories of moral obligation developed by philosophers over the years, various versions of mixed theories have emerged (Louden: 586 - 590). The Parameters of Deontology Most people hold deontological moral beliefs. Deontologists, unlike consequentialists believe that there are certain acts that are wrong in themselves. The philosopher Kant is considered to be a deontologist because he believed that lying is impermissible whatever might be the consequences of not lying. Secondly, deontologists also support expressionless principles of a very general nature, which is a characteristic similar to those of consequentialists who believe that it is always impermissible not to bring about the best outcome from an agent-neutral perspective (Lippert-Rasmussen: 15). Thirdly, endorsing the notion of agent-relativity, deontologists believe that there are “restrictions on action which have the effect of denying that there is any non-agent-relative principle for ranking states of affairs such that is always permissible to produce the best available state of affairs so construed” (Scheffler: 80). To some extent, deontology can be explained by the theory of partnership endorsed by Eisler (p.17), which is opposed to the theory of domination. The human problems that cause unnecessary human suffering and violence are explained by the author who identifies the struggle between the Partnership model and the Dominator or domination model which goes back several millennia. The author’s study of 30,000 years of human evolution indicates how our problems emerged from the conquest and suppression of an earlier partnership culture by the domination culture in prehistory. From the earlier partnership culture emerged social stability for thousands of years. This changed to the domination model characterized by several hundred centuries of conflict (Eisler: 17, 60). A large part of our planet and human organizations have been functioning as Domination organizations in which the distinctive features are an unequal distribution of resources and privileges, hierarchical power relations, and the use of violence to maintain order systems in which a few people dominate many. These domination systems underlie families, schools, religious organizations, work organizations and the government. Such systems portray humans as essentially selfish and violent, and they justify domination and control by claiming superiority (Rosenberg: 111). Deontologists are often sceptical of the very idea of agent-neutral, non-moral evaluation of outcomes; and are unanimous in the belief that at least some fundamental moral principles or ideas are completely agent-relative, and many moral duties are agent-relative. How an agent may act or should act frequently depends on the various relations an individual stands in with others. The moral duty to not betray one’s friends is agent-relative, irreducible to any agent-neutral values, even assuming that betrayals have intrinsic agent-neutral dis-value themselves (Darwall: 2). Deontological theory deals with right and wrong in a manner similar to the theory of Situational Ethics. Ethical problems seen in the context of Situational Ethics and its approach to decision making in complex circumstances, challenges assumptions in many dominant moral traditions. Situational Ethics permits a new way of thinking about morality, democratizing ethical and theological conceptualization. Love is emphasized as the supreme moral principle, as active good will towards the neighbour, and actively seeking the neighbour’s good. Here love has little room for emotion and feeling, but aims to rationally determine effective means to good ends (Fletcher & Childress: 1). There are two kinds of thinking, each justified and needed in its own way: calculative thinking and meditative thinking. Man’s essential nature lies in meditative thinking. The tide of technological revolution should not deceive man into thinking that the only way of thinking is that related to the calculative way. Only persistent, courageous thinking can help us understand new ground and new foundations. “In that ground the creativity that produces lasting works could strike new roots” (Heidegger, 2003: 87). An example of deontology can be given from the ethical system of Clinical Ethics as a practical discipline “that provides a structured approach to identifying, analyzing and resolving ethical issues in clinical medicine” (Jonsen et al, 2006: 1). It relies on the conviction that even when perplexity is great and emotions run high, physicians, nurses and patients and their families can work constructively to identify, analyse and resolve many of the ethical problems that occur in clinical medicine. The focus is on helping clinicians understand and manage the cases they encounter in their own practices. Deontology’s morality rooted in reason can find parallels in this example. The Characteristics of Deontology The duty-oriented ethics of deontology focuses on the basic rightness or wrongness of an act, and it depends upon its intrinsic nature, rather than upon the situation or the consequences. Deontology emphasizes the importance of a person’s duties and obligations, directing what a person ought to do. According to deontology, a person’s duty to act and the right of others should determine the decisions (Schlabach: 186). Deontology as a Distinctive Ethical Response: This view of deontology avoids making a basic distinction between good or value properties and other, non-good, right making properties. The distinction between teleology and deontology is located in the sphere of our reasons for action, specifically the opposition of promoting and honoring or respecting reasons (Gaus: 180). Respect for Persons: Common to most contemporary deontological theories and its Kantian links, is a commitment to respect for persons. Ethical response to persons is different from ethical response to things. Confronting valuable things, the correct response would be to promote them, and maximise their good effects to the world. The proper response towards persons is respect and restraint, treating people not simply as means to the production of value, but as the ends (Gaus: 181). Deontology and Rules: Deontology is typically understood as upholding Kant’s commonsense view that the moral rightness of an act is in its alignment with a moral rule or principle. Right action is the actual activity, rather than the results it yields. Some philosophers have therefore equated this feature with formalism in ethics. The formal characteristics typically associated with deontological theories is “conformity to rules, principles, or maxims” (Gaus: 182). Acts and Rules: Rule-following forms the reason to act, they are not based on the goodness of the states of affairs brought about. The correctness of our action under a rule is not related to consequences. However consequences do matter, and cannot override rules. This indicates that the correctness of actions is often evaluated without reference to the goodness of the state of affairs that result. This feature of deontology is fundamental to rule-governed life (Gaus: 185). Deontology and Side Constraints: Deontological systems direct an agent to what she should do, rather than what is done by her and others. Deontological ethics is not only about the rightness of acts to bring about worthy states of affairs. If there is a deontic prohibition on killing, the agent has a strong moral reason not to kill. But, it does not mean that one has a strong moral reason to prevent others from killing or to minimize the killing in the world. Thus deontic morality is one of side constraints (Gaus: 185). Deontology as the Morality of Modernity: In the present day, we are all deontologists, since modern day ethics is basically deontological. There is a revival of virtue theory, which seems to advance an understanding of ethics as attractive. Proponents of modern ethical systems are devoted to explaining the duties, the right and wrong, the rights, and the demands on people regardless of what they seek. This is true of Kantian views, consequentialist views, and also utilitarianism (Gaus: 188). The Application of the Ethical System of Deontology to a Case Study By integrating clinical and ethical deliberation, a strong framework is provided for professionals considering ethical dilemmas, since the two are intertwined. To strengthen the relationship between clinical practice and ethical theory is to evaluate the ethical dimensions of clinical practice carefully and consistently. By means of dialogue with others who hold different values and opinions one is forced to articulate their position, and to be open to input from others. This balance provides a strong framework for professional development and growth throughout the career (Schlabach: 87). The link between voice and choice legitimized a process of psychological and political growth for both women and men (Gilligan, 1982: xvii). Application of the Deontological Theory to Living Organ Donation and Transplantation Taking into consideration the Kantian concept of ownership of the human body in the context of living organ donation and transplantation, the concept of the body and mutilation, arises. In Kant’s applied ethics, duties against suicide, gluttony, self-mutilation and carnal crimes are the main issues. According to Kant’s duties to the physical self, the integrity of the body does not permit the use of the body as a tool, since the body deserves respect as a purposive organism, and as the expression of the humanity of the individual. Based on this, Kant describes the body as an incarnation of reason; that is, the body is the individual himself and is not his as ownership. The body is not a thing but a person that cannot be disposed of. The Kantian view states that persons are the real owners of their bodies, but their ownership does not allow “its free violation and alienation” (Kanniyakonil, 2007: 62). According to Kant, action should be according to the demands of reason established by the moral law. A human being should not be treated as a means. All actions of a human being should be considered as an end in themselves. This prohibits a human being of disposing themselves by “mutilating, damaging or killing themselves” (Kant: No.429: p.36). Kant stresses that since the body is not an object, one cannot sell it, and deprive oneself of an integral part or organ. Mutilation strongly affects the biological integrity of the body. Mutilation is permitted only for the good of the body. “This approach also prohihibits living organ donation and transplantation” (Kanniyakonil: 62). However, there are Kant’s followers who believe that there is no problem relating to the integrity of the body after death, hence organ donation after death is permitted. Others believe that according to the deontological approach, the human body belongs to the person, and others have no claim on the body. If the treatment is based only on a cost benefit assessment, then it applies human values in a reductionist way. Another deontological approach is that quality of life cannot be considered as an argument for transplantation. However, according to Illhardt (p. 196), deontological theories are sometimes misinterpreted. The case of organ donation may illustrate this misinterpretation. Normally, the autonomy of the person is to be honoured. At the same time, a physician requires some moral direction with regard to transplanting an organ. Deontological principles are highly general or highly abstract, which cannot give answers to a physician who faces difficulties in a concrete situation. However, the issue of generality can be found in other moral theories also. Any theory based on several rules when applied to particular contexts will raise problems (Kanniyakonil: 64). Deontology is not always an ethical theory which provides answers to these problems; it is a method showing how one might productively approach a problem. Hence, a positive aspect of the deontological approach is its emphasis on the dignity of life. The approach does not condone paid organ donations and malpractices in organ donations and transplantations. In cases where the body becomes a commodity and persons are misused for transplantation, a deontological approach leads to a complete rejection of these practices. Another feature is that, focusing only on the act, the deontological approach does not take into consideration all the aspects of living organ donation and transplantation. For Kant, morality is rooted in reason (Kanniyakonil: 64). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the ethical system of Deontology. The historical development of Deontology was outlined. It originated with Bentham’s concept of an ethical system. Bentham’s Greek neologism “Deontology” soon became an accepted technical term in the domain of ethics and law. Its standard meaning for around one hundred years was the “science of duty of what ought to be done” (Louden: 577). The ethical system further developed, to evolve into the present-day versions of mixed theories of deontology and teleology. The parameters of deontology were identified, and its characteristics were determined. This ethical system was applied to a Case Study, featuring living organ donation and transplantation. This process was studied in relation to deontology and the related pespective of Kant, on the ethical system. Works Cited Darwall, S.L. Deontology. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Company. (2003). Eisler, Riane. The chalice and the blade: our history, our future. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. (1995). Fletcher, Joseph F. & Childress, James F. Situation ethics: the new morality. The United States of America: Westminster John Knox Press. (1997). Gaus, Gerald F. What is deontology? Part two: reasons to act. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 35 (2001): 179-193. Gilligan, Carol. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. The United States of America: Harvard University Press. (1982). Heidegger, Martin. Philosophical and political writings. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. (2003). Illhardt, Franz J. Ownership of the human body: deontological approaches. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (1982). Jonsen, Albert R., Siegler, Mark & Winslade, William J. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. The United States of America: McGraw-Hill Professional. (2006). Kanniyakonil, Scaria. The fundamentals of bioethics: legal perspectives and ethical approaches. India: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies Publications. (2007). Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Translated by J.W. Ellington. The United States of America: Hackett Publishing. (1993). Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. Deontology, responsibility, and equality. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. (2005). Louden, Robert B. Toward a geneology of ‘Deontology’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34.4 (1996): 570-572. Rosenberg, Marshall B. Contributor: Eisler, Riane. Life-enriching education: non-violent communication helps schools improve performance, reduce conflict, and enhance relationships. New York: PuddleDancer Press. (2003). Scheffler, S. The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1982). Schlabach, Gretchen A. & Peer, Kimberly S. Professional ethics in athletic training. The United States of America: Elsevier Health Sciences. (2007). Read More