Consider two types of consequentialist moral reasoning: utilitarianism and moral egoism. Consider also two types of non-consequentialist moral reasoning: virtue ethics and deontology.

• Which of these systems, if any, do you find most reasonable?
• Why?

In addition to your main response, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread.

So, let’s consider a hypothetical situation…

You’ve got an acquaintance at West Coast. Not a close friend, but someone you’ve taken classes with before. And in those classes, this person has generally done as well or better than you. They’re a responsible, capable student.

But one term, this student disappears for a few weeks at the end of the term. You see them right before you go into take your final exam, and the student says they had to leave the country to care for a sick relative. They asked the professor for an extension, but the professor refused, and now they’re totally unprepared for the final and about to fail the class.

Except there’s a quirk in the testing room. From this student’s seat, they can look up at the light fixtures and see a reflection of your desk a few rows away. So, they can copy off your exam with no chance of you getting caught (just accept this as part of the hypothetical). Why the student told you this before cheating, I’m not sure, but now you know their plan.

So…what’s the right thing to do? Let them copy? Report to the professor? Just move seats (if you do, someone else will sit in your seat and they’ll probably copy off of them)?

Now, here’s the important part. It’s not your answer that we’re after this week. It’s your reasons. The big values that you used to arrive at the specific judgment about this case. For example, you might make the following argument:

P: It will help them a lot if they pass

P: Nobody will get in any trouble

C: It’s good to let them copy

That’s an example of a Consequentialist argument. Your focused on the outcomes of the decision. Specifically, it’s a Utilitarian argument, because the big principle required to make that argument work is the premise: the right action is the one that creates that maximized happiness for all involved.

But you could arrive at the same conclusion for entirely different reasons. You might say something like this:

P: To report the person is to snitch

P: You have a duty never to snitch

C: You should let them copy or switch seats

This argument isn’t really about outcomes anymore. It invokes a duty – a moral rule that must be followed no matter what. That’s a Deontological approach.

Obviously, I think there are logical problems with both of those arguments! In the first case, I think there may well be people harmed by cheating, especially if we consider what would happen if everyone did it. In the second, is the duty not to snitch really one you can apply consistently? Would you not report a car theft or a murder? And if your “no snitch” duty only applies some of the time, how do you decide when?

So, read up on the different moral perspectives in the book. The prompt mentions four, but there are more! Then, talk about which ones make the most (or event the least) sense to you and try to apply them to some hypotheticals. I look forward to hearing your ideas 😉

comment 1

Utilitarianism is a perspective of moral reasoning that it is a right decision if it produces more happiness or benefit than alternatives. Moral egoism is another perspective that it is a right decision if it produces more happiness or benefit for oneself than the alternatives. People commonly use both of moral reasoning in daily decisions. However, these are not perfect perspectives because not everyone can be happy with a decision. If I lie to someone to steal money for my happiness, the other person will be upset or mad. Also, if I steal food from grocery market to feed my family, it will disadvantage the grocery market owner.

Deontology is a perspective of moral reasoning that it is a right decision if it is our moral duty. There are two types of duties: hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is duties that should be done to accomplish specific goals. For example, you ought to study hard to get an A in class. This is not a moral imperative because the action is performed for the sake of some objective. Categorical imperative is duties according to a universal law or rule. Virtue ethics is a perspective of moral reasoning that a decision is right based on virtues such as courage, patient, friendliness, truthfulness, justice, etc.

I think virtue ethics make the most sense to me because it leads to moral value judgement. Here is a hypothetical situation. On the day of a job interview, you woke up late. You can still make on time if you run straight to the interview location. However, a hit and run car accident happened right in front of you. The victim would like to talk with you for few minutes to get your information and ask for being a witness.

The following is the virtue ethics perspective.

P: Hit and run is not a virtuous action.

P: Helping the victim is important to develop good character.

P: You should help the victim.

Source:

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2020). Critical thinking. New York, NY, United States of America: McGraw-Hill Education

comment 2

Normative Theories are divided into two categories: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Consequentialist focuses on evaluating behaviors by ’emphasizing its consequences’ (WCU presentation video). They also believe that ‘morally right behavior’ produces the best consequences (WCU presentation video)

Utilitarianism refers to the idea of the greater good and focuses on maximizing good for the majority of people. According to Utilitratisim, Even though some individuals may suffer from the actions, it is still considered ethical if it does more good for a higher number of people than harm.

For example, you are walking down the street and notice people looting a sandwich shop. What would be the right thing to do? What’s moral? According to utilitarianism, you will be judged based on the results that come from your action. Therefore, you will need to find an action that will produce the most significant benefit.

Options:

P: Ignore what’s going on, and keep walking

P: Risk your life, and try to stop looters and protect the business

P: Call 911, and report the crime

non- consequentialist focuses on ‘evaluating behaviors without emphasizing’ its consequences, and they believe that having a virtuous character is more important than the consequences they may face (WCU presentation video)

Deontology refers to the ethics of duty, where the morality of an action depends on the nature of the action, which means that harm is unacceptable irrespective of its consequences. It focuses on using rules to distinguish between right and wrong, emphasizing the relationship between duty and morality. Therefore, to always treat people with dignity and respect (WCU presentation video). According to Kent, “For our act to be morally praiseworthy, it must be done, not for the sake of some objective, but simply because it is right’ (Moore & Parker, 2020)

For example, let’s say, making a pinky promise to your two-year-old niece, that you would buy her a buy on Sunday. If you made a promise, you must keep it. In this case, making a false promise is considered wrong.

In nursing, we can say that deontology is patient-centered care, whereas utilitarianism is society-centered.

Reference:

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2020). Critical thinking. New York, NY, United States of America: McGraw-Hill Education