The Views of Ethics - Essay Example

?Essay on Deontological and Consequential Point of Views of Ethics Introduction: The paper at hand is an essay on ethics, mainly focusing on the stand points of deontological and consequentialist aspects when considering the cases of two scientists A and B. The main objective of the essay is to analyze the situations of both the scientists, as well as the consequences rendered by these situations in the light of deontology and consequentialism. The essay will first explain the situation of scientist A and discuss the ethical aspects involved in the case with the help of supporting sources and then it will do the same in the second case. The paper will then evaluate the relation of the first situation and then the second situation in terms of the aforementioned points of view. Later on the essay will discuss the interplay of ethical principles in both cases and how they interact with each other, and the paper will end with a conclusion that sums up the whole essay. Therefore, the paper aims to discuss the specific situations of the scientists, defines the concepts of deontology and consequentialism, as well as analyzes the situations in both points of view and from that it will ascertain which scientist is right. Ethics refers to the “code of moral standards by which people judge the actions and behaviors of themselves and others”.1 Ethics is a set of rules and regulations that define as well as govern the morality of a person’s conduct in various professional fields. Different professions demand following of different ethical theories and it is the same in case of different regions as well. Thus deriving a universal ethics that can be applied uniformly in all fields and regions is impossible. Therefore, keeping this is mind, various ethicists have come up with ethics suitable for the respective professions and regions, which has led to the origin of several ethical theories that include relativism, absolutism, deontology or duty ethics, Kantian theory, utilitarianism, consequentialism, virtue ethics etc. The paper at hand thus deals with deontology and consequentialism in terms of the two cases given. The first case describes the situation of scientist A, where she deliberately modifies the data related to her experiment so as to achieve success in the experiment. Her act of distorting the data is against the moral code of conduct, or rather the ethics. Ethics is built upon certain values and the act of distortion here overrides these values, some of which are honesty, integrity and responsibility. She becomes dishonest by changing the data and modifying it in order to make the experiment successful, thus she does not follow the principle of “honesty”.2 By not keeping the data in its original form, she also neglects the value of “integrity,” by being untruthful to herself as well as others around her, which would later on lead to the development of a guilty conscience.3 ‘A’ further breaches the ethics of responsibility, as she does not fulfill her obligation of submitting clean and unbiased data. Therefore, it is observed that scientist A deliberately distorts data in order to create a successful scientific experiment, thus intentionally violating ethical values such as honesty, integrity and responsibility. The second case describes the situation of scientist B, where she has omitted some data due to her carelessness. But it is said that the consequences were same in both the cases, which means despite her omissions, she succeeds in the experiment. In this case, the scientist has not deliberately tampered with data, rather the data has been changed due to a state of being unaware. However, this unawareness stems from negligence or ignorance from the part of B, as she has not gone through the data again and made sure if it was completely accurate. Therefore, it can be discerned that she breaches the ethics of responsibility, as she does not cross check her data at any time of the experiment, thus unintentionally leading to distortion of data. It is natural for human beings to make mistakes, thus keeping this in mind, the authorities make rules and regulations. In case of scientists, it is certain that they are required to go through their data many times in order to get accurate results. However, scientist B fails to do so and this leads to omission of data, which has thus altered the end result. Therefore, one can observe that scientist B has unintentionally omitted data regarding her science experiment and breached the ethics of responsibility, but still manages to be a success. In order to understand the ethics regarding both the situations, one needs to analyze them in the light of various ethical theories. According to the requirement of this paper, the cases need to be analyzed from the perspectives of deontology and consequentialism. Deontology, or duty ethics refers to the concept that “actions are inherently moral or immoral, and individuals are morally obligated to act only in moral ways,”4 whereas consequentialism relates to the theory that “that people should act in ways that result in the best consequences”.5 Therefore, it can be construed that both these theories are contradictory of each other and view ethics in terms that lead to high contrasts. In duty ethics, importance is given to the actions as well as behaviors of the individuals and it is believed that these actions are naturally moral or immoral. From the point of view of deontology, there is no significance of outcomes. That is, no matter if the outcome of the actions is positive or negative, the actions are judged on the basis of the morality of the actions alone and not its consequences. However, from a consequentialist point of view, it is believed that actions themselves cannot be right or wrong, but they are judged according to “what happens because of them,”6 thus allowing “the ends to justify the means”.7 Considering the situation of scientist A from the point of view of duty ethics, it can be seen that her actions are morally wrong. Though she achieves success in her experiment, it still does not justify her actions, thus making her total behavior bad. Deliberately tampering with the data and modifying it to meet her personal goal is against the code of conduct here. Thus, her action of intentionally distorting the data is wrong, as she may have tried to outsmart others who have maintained accurate and clean data throughout their experiments but failed in the end. Or maybe the experiment was for a better cause, like developing an antibiotic or cure for some disease, and changing the data to a certain extent was the only way to be successful. No matter what the motives or reasons behind A’s behavior are, these have no significance under duty ethics. To further understand deontology, consider the case of Robin Hood, who strived to help the poor and needy by stealing from the upper class of the society. Stealing as an act is considered to be inherently wrong and immoral. Under deontology, people will not assess or so as much even consider the outcome or the motive behind Robin Hood’s stealing, thus judging his behavior to be faulty, wrong and unjust. In the same way, A’s outcome or motive is not really judged under the deontological standpoint. Therefore, in terms of deontological ethics, A’s behavior of distorting data in order to create a successful scientific experiment is wrong, immoral and unjustifiable. Considering the situation of scientist A under the consequentialist viewpoint demands considering the outcomes of her action. As mentioned earlier, consequentialist ethics judges actions and behaviors based on their outcomes and not on the morality of the actions. This type of ethics relates to the belief that an action, which keeps a large amount of people happy and relatively less people unhappy is morally good. Again, when one takes into account Robin Hood’s actions and analyzes them with a consequentialist point of view, it is observed that what he did was right. Through the process of stealing, he was able to make a large number of poor people happy, and thus, the happiness his actions brought outweigh the unhappiness that they caused. Therefore, his behavior under this light, is justifiable and considered to be correct. In a similar way, considering that A is successful in creating a cure that would relieve the pain of thousands of people as opposed to making her fellow scientists unhappy, dominates her action of modifying data to achieve success. Thus, in terms of consequentialist ethics, A’s behavior of distorting data is a justifiable means to her end, which is creating a successful science experiment. Considering the situation of scientist B from the point of view of duty ethics, it can be seen that her actions are unjust and morally wrong. Though she achieves success in her experiment, it still does not justify her actions, thus deeming her total behavior wrong. Being unaware of omission is most definitely B’s fault as she does not cross reference her data and does not ensure that it is precise. Thus failure in accuracy and precision on the part of B is against the code of conduct generally followed in this profession. Thus, her action of unintentionally excluding some data is wrong, as making such flaws in this field may lead to dire consequences. However, she still thrives in creating a successful experiment despite her lack of vigilance in this case. But the fact is that, under duty ethics, the success or positive impacts of an action are not considered, rather the actions are given importance. In different professional grounds there can be seen various acts of negligence that occur in everyday life. Sometimes, these acts lead to fatal results as can be the case where a doctor forgets to prescribe the primary medicine required for the patient suffering from some chronic disease. Or in the same case, the doctor forgets to prescribe the additional medicines required, this can also cause negative impacts on the patient. In the same way, A’s outcome or motive is not really judged under the deontological standpoint. Thus, negligence negatively impacts the person who performs the act as well as others who are subject to the effects of the act. In the same way carelessness on part of scientist B is intolerable due to the simple fact that ignorance is morally wrong and that she has not stood by the rules of her duty which require her to be accurate in all aspects. Therefore, in terms of deontological ethics, B’s behavior of omitting some data is wrong as well as immoral and cannot be justified by the successful experiment it resulted in. Analyzing the situation of scientist B under the consequentialist viewpoint demands consideration of the outcomes of her action. As can be discerned from the aforementioned, consequentialist ethics evaluates actions and behaviors based on their outcomes and not on the morality of the actions. Thus, under this view, the number of happy and unhappy people are taken into consideration again. Take as an example a nurse who breaches medical ethics by neglecting her duty of giving a patient his respective medicine of his first day of admittance. But later the doctor finds out that the medicine which he prescribed contained ingredients that the patient is allergic to. Thus, negligence on part of the nurse has saved the patient from having allergic reactions on top of the disease he already suffers from. Now, suppose scientist B was carrying out an experiment to find a vaccine to prevent some chronic disease. According to the research question, she ends up with the same result as scientist A, thus meaning that she achieves success in her experiment as well. Thus, it is ascertained that negligence on her part has indirectly led to the creation of a successful experiment. Thus, this negligence violates her code of conduct and makes her authorities unhappy, which would in turn make her unhappy. However, the vaccine she is able to develop due to this can save the lives of several people, thus making the potential victims as well as their family members happy. Therefore, again, the number of happy people prevails over the number of unhappy ones, thus ultimately making her act of negligence right just like the one where the nurse forgets to give medicine to the patient. Thus, in terms of consequentialist ethics, B’s act of omitting data is a justifiable means to her end, which has led to the creation of a successful science experiment. Thus, in deontological view of ethics, it can be observed that both scientists A and B are wrong, whereas in consequentialist view both scientists are right. However, through a deeper analysis of the ethics concerned, one can ascertain who is morally more right and who is more wrong. In the case of scientist A, she deliberately distorts data, thus keeping in mind a personal objective. Therefore she is violating the code of ethics by tampering with the data, by deleting some data, or adding new data or just changing the existing data, all of which she is not supposed to do in a duty bound view. However, in the case of scientist B, she does not violate any such duty or obligatory code of conduct deliberately. Her fault lies in not taking the extra step to cross reference and ensure whether all the data is accurate or not. Thus, scientist B is not as wrong as scientist A is, since the former does not deliberately compromise any ethical code of conduct as the latter. Thus under the perspective of duty ethics both the actions of the scientists are considered wrong and immoral despite having produced same successful results. Since this type of ethics does not give any importance whatsoever to the outcomes or consequences, it is also known as non-consequentialist ethics. However, if the question arises as to who is more right here, the answer is scientist B, as she does not deliberately violate any code of conduct like scientist A. Similarly, to a question as to who is more wrong, or which act is more wrong, the answer is most definitely scientist A, or scientist A’s act as she is fully aware of breaching the ethical code of conduct when she distorts her data to achieve her ends. However, according to the consequentialist point of view, both the acts of scientists A and B are to be rewarded due to the outcomes that they produce. Both the deliberate action of scientist A as well as unintentional act on part of scientist B have led to successful experiments, thus creating positive and good outcomes. Thus, based solely on the outcomes or consequences and keeping aside the actions that caused resulted in these consequences, one can ascertain that the scientists have morally done a good job. Here if the question arises as to who did more good or who did more bad, the answer is very well impossible due to the fact that both the situations have the same consequence, as is mentioned in the research question. Scientist A as well as scientist B are able to deliver by creating a successful experiment, thus ultimately fulfilling the objective of the experiment they carried out. Considering their situation in the light of the theory of utilitarianism, which is part of the consequentialist approach, it can be discerned that again, both their actions are justifiable. Utilitarianism is defined “as the greatest good for the greatest number” thus implying the greater number of people who are happy as compared to the relatively lesser unhappy people.8 In both the cases, where the scientists emerge successful, their experiments will most definitely benefit more people and make them happy, thus justifying their actions in yet another perspective. There is another aspect to consequentialism, which is “negative consequentialism” and it “aims at minimizing poor results”.9 In this light, when the situations of both the scientists are analyzed, it can be seen that their actions do not basically harm anyone, thus not causing any poor results. Therefore, both their actions under the consequentialist view are observed to be right based on their good outcomes. However, when considering the situations from one viewpoint such as that of deontology and consequentialism alone, will give opposite results. Where one view judges the actions to be wrong, the other would deem them correct thus adding to the dilemma of the real rightness or morality of the actions. When considering the deontological aspect, situations are analyzed with only one view in mind, that is of the actions. Thus, this type of ethics is absolute and not flexible at all, which deems it difficult to follow in the real world. In the case of consequentialist viewpoint, only the outcomes are considered, thus no relevance is given to the actions that cause the outcomes. However, in real life, this is also not very suitable as often outcomes may be good, but the means undertaken may be totally wrong. Therefore, there arises a need to consider the situations from a viewpoint that inculcates both duty ethics and consequentialist ethics in it. For this, a better way would be to follow “rule consequentialism,” which relates with following those “rules (that) are the most ethical” based on their consequences.10 Therefore, ethical code of conducts will thus be based on morally good deeds and actions as well as consequences that are beneficial to the larger part of the society. Considering rule consequentialism, it is construed that scientist B right as she does not deliberately violate any code of conduct and her action on an overall basis results in a positive outcome. Conclusion: The paper aims to discuss the specific situations of the scientists, defines the concepts of deontology and consequentialism, as well as analyzes the situations in both points of view and from that it ascertains which scientist is right. Furthermore, it compares and contrasts between both the situations giving newer perspectives into these situations. From the analysis done, it is construed that scientist B is morally more right as compared to scientist A, as the former does not deliberately breach or compromise any code of conduct, but still manages to produce an overall good result. Bibliography Bowie, Norman E., and Meg Schneider. Business Economics for Dummies. Indiana: Wiley Publishing, Inc, 2011. Read More