Ethical
theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each
emphasize different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most
ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical
theory itself. People usually base their individual choice of ethical theory
upon their life experiences.
The
deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and
duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow
his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one's
duty is what is considered ethically correct (1,2). For instance, a
deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law.
A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since
they will be based on the individual's set duties.
Deontology
provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as
those within one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation
to protect his little sister when they cross a busy road together. This theory
also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which
is called "supererogation" (1). For example, if a person hijacked a
train full of students and stated that one person would have to die in order
for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her
duty to the other students and performs an act of supererogation.
Although
deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number
of flaws. One weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical
basis for deciding an individual's duties. For instance, businessman may decide
that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to
be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty.
Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always
has to sit in the same chair. A similar scenario unearths two other faults of
deontology including the fact that sometimes a person's duties conflict, and
that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others. For instance, if
the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he
supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to
society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his
meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time? This scenario of conflicting
obligations does not lead us to a clear ethically correct resolution nor does
it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist's decision. Since
deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide
any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting
obligations (1,2).
The
utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the
consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the
greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct.
One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar
predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is more
beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rationale argument
for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context
(1,2).
There
are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as
described in the above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the
acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the
societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into
account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to
benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available.
Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and
includes beneficence at the same time (1,2).
As
with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contain
numerous flaws. Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the
future. Although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict
outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be true. This
uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look
unethical as time passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as
he predicted (1,2). For example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in
order to warm his friends, and then the fire burns down the house because the
soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have
chosen an unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as unethical
because it did not benefit his friends.
Another
assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare
the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale.
However, comparing material gains such as money against intangible gains such
as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a large extent
(1).
A
third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for the
existence of supererogation or heroes. In other words, people are obligated to
constantly behave so that the most people benefit regardless of the danger
associated with an act (1). For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices her life
to save a train full of people is actually fulfilling an obligation to society
rather than performing a selfless and laudable act.
As
explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the
maximum good. According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed
upon in order to benefit a greater population. In other words, act utilitarianism
is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual
if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of
people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is apparent
when a utilitarian faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly
experiences a change in those variables that causes her to change her original
decision. This means that an act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment
and then dislike you the next moment because the variables have changed, and
you are no longer beneficial to the most people (1).
Rule
utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its
usefulness. In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting
rules (1). Let us revisit the example of a person running late for his meeting.
While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state governor may believe
that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time because
the members of the state government will benefit from this decision, he may
encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he is running
late. As a rule utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law because
this benefits an entire society, but at the same time, he believes that it is
ethically correct to be on time for his meeting because it is a state
government meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no
ethically correct answer for this scenario (1).
In
the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and
given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and
valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. Individuals may also
bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so (1).
For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow the car for the
afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a
right to the car in the afternoon.
A
major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must
decipher what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has
to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order
for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what
the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the
rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical
theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society (1). For example
in America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is
upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers' of
America was to uphold this right to freedom of religion. However, under
Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion because
Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The
American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did
not uphold it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those
who practiced it.
The
casuist ethical theory is one that compares a current ethical dilemma with
examples of similar ethical dilemmas and their outcomes. This allows one to
determine the severity of the situation and to create the best possible
solution according to others' experiences. Usually one will find paradigms that
represent the extremes of the situation so that a compromise can be reached
that will hopefully include the wisdom gained from the previous examples (2).
One
drawback to this ethical theory is that there may not be a set of similar
examples for a given ethical dilemma. Perhaps that which is controversial and
ethically questionable is new and unexpected. Along the same line of thinking,
a casuistical theory also assumes that the results of the current ethical
dilemma will be similar to results in the examples. This may not be necessarily
true and would greatly hinder the effectiveness of applying this ethical theory
(2).
The
virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action
that may deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person's morals,
reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular
behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a
passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well
will understand the person's character and will be able to judge the friend. If
the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good standing amongst his
colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be able to
judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and
simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person
who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged
harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior
(2).
One
weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a
person's change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made
mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the
scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally
plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher
may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until
a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him or her (2).
Ethical
theories and principles bring significant characteristics to the
decision-making process. Although all of the ethical theories attempt to follow
the ethical principles in order to be applicable and valid by themselves, each
theory falls short with complex flaws and failings. However, these ethical
theories can be used in combination in order to obtain the most ethically
correct answer possible for each scenario. For example, a utilitarian may use
the casuistic theory and compare similar situations to his real life situation
in order to determine the choice that will benefit the most people. The
deontologist and the rule utilitarian governor who are running late for their
meeting may use the rights ethical theory when deciding whether or not to speed
to make it to the meeting on time. Instead of speeding, they would slow down
because the law in the rights theory is given the highest priority, even if it
means that the most people may not benefit from the decision to drive the speed
limit. By using ethical theories in combination, one is able to use a variety
of ways to analyze a situation in order to reach the most ethically correct
decision possible (1).
We
are fortunate to have a variety of ethical theories that provide a substantial
framework when trying to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory
attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when trying
to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory,
including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision
when trying to achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.