Ethical Theories and Principles

Question 1: Discuss at least three potential long-term effects of granting an

exception for Carol.

An ethical paradox occurs when a person is faced with a decision-making problem between two

or multiple ambiguous moral imperatives. In the very core of an ethical paradox resides a conflict

that presents itself out of the situation and the person deciding cannot see a clear path that does not

end in the transgression of any of the parties involved in the situation. The fundamental goal of

ethical studies and the theories presented by philosophers over the centuries is tried to remedy such

paradoxical situations as much as possible. However, arguments can be made that the conflicting

theoretical perspectives that these philosophers have presented actually made the life of a

simpleton even more difficult.

According to Elsevier (2009), the study of ethics is perceived as a division of philosophy that tend

to include the teachings of many other fields of study like psychology, history, anthropology,

economics, politics, theology and sociology. Having said that, ethics sets itself distinct from these

disciplines as the very notion of ethics is not based upon of factual knowledge like the other

branches of studies, rather, it concentrates on determining the very nature of various normative

concepts and to apply those principles to solve different moral problems arising in various

situation.

In the given case study, the character in question, while faced by an ethical paradox adopted the

deontological theory which solely concentrates on the intent and the motive of the action without

considering the consequences of that action. This kind of issues are not uncommon in the society

at all and very often undesirable consequences follow that are unintended. As the moral principle

proposed by Immanuel Kent in his deontological theory dictates that intent should be the driving
force for every action it often brings out such unintended consequences which the person did not

want to happen (Hutchinson, 2012).

Here, in the situation in question, the simple intent was to help a sick person in desperate need.

However, there might be some long term effect of this action. For example, if an exception for

Carol is made then the corporate policy is rendered pointless. Such an exception is not fair to the

other employees. There is a reason that a policy like this was put in place. Even though the case

does not mention it but the obvious reason is that the organization has designed such a policy on

the basis of the resources they have. As the organization does not have unlimited resources, it was

not possible for them to treat everyone like the way Carol was to be treated if an exception was

made. So if the organization violates its own policy and allows an exception for Carol, then in

future such facilities should be given to everyone else. So basically they will have to change their

policy altogether, which brings to the second long-term effect.

Making an exception in Carol’s case is not fair to the company either. The organization made its

policies based on the resources they have. It is not that they promised something and declining to

follow through. The clause was put into the employment contract and Carol and other employees

agreed to it when they agreed to accept the employment offer. This kind of exception puts the

organization is a very difficult situation, both financially and otherwise. If they decline to make an

exception, it won’t look good and it will be an extremely unpopular decision that will directly harm

the company’s reputation both within and outside the company. Also, if they make an exception

all the other employees will expect a similar treatment which the organization cannot afford.

The third long term effect could involve the persons who are allowing the exception to happen or

making it happen. A company, corporation or organization of this size includes multiple decision
makers and not all of them may not agree with the ‘exception’ idea and they might hold those

people responsible if any unintended consequences take place. This could have a huge impact on

these peoples’ personal and professional lives, and the lives of their families as well.

Question 2: Justify the position that duty should be trumped by good.

The current population of the world is 7.53 billion. This is not just a mere representation of the

number of human beings inhabiting the earth. This number also signifies the bazillion interests,

rights, and conflicts that surround us. It is extremely difficult and complicated to build a framework

that can preserve and protect each and every one of these interests and rights while resolving all

the conflicts. However, as an effort to make the best of the circumstance and to establish an order

in society, laws are made. Although this ‘far from perfect’ process diminishes a great deal of those

rights and interests and sometimes flares up conflicts, these are believed to be the only way to

survive in such a chaotic atmosphere.

Now in such an environment, the very notion of “Good” cannot be an absolute concept. Where

deontological theory time to time tries to defy the idea of obeying the structure (like the case

presented here) and act spontaneously by accepting the relativity of goodness, the societal structure

constantly tries to discourage spontaneity. But at the same time what the legal or societal

framework does is, take as much of the “Good” possible and put them under the “duty” column. It

is true that this process often comes at a cost and as has been mentioned earlier it diminishes a

portion of the “goodness”, that the deontological “duty” is so keen to uphold, for the sake of

something often referred to as the “greater good”.

Now if the society starts to allow actions solely based on their face value while not following any

particular structure the world will surely slip into chaos. This is a widely recognized limitation of
deontological theory. The most conspicuous problem with this theory is the apparent irrationality

of our having permissions that makes society ethically worse (Hutchinson, 2012). A deontologist

would require his or her own model of rationality that is non-consequentialist and which is a

feasible substitute to the instinctively conceivable, “action-leading-to- best-consequence”

framework of rationality. Until that point, deontology will always remain paradoxical and

implausible. Even in the given case, we can see that granting an exception by disobeying the

structure and by following the deontological theory exposes the rights and interests of many

individuals in the harm’s way.

Question 3: Analyze how deontological ethics, in this case, is in conflict with

consequential thinking.

Deontology has derived from “doen” and “logos”, which means “duty” and “science”. The

archetypes of deontological theory emphasize on the relationship that exists between duties or

obligations and morality of actions. The theoretical framework of deontology judges an action on

the basis of the characteristics of that action itself rather than its outcome (Yarbro, 2011).

Therefore, according to this theory, an action will be considered morally good if the intent or the

characteristic of that action is good regardless of the result of that action. Additionally,

deontological ethics dictates that no matter the consequences to the wellbeing of society, some

actions must be regarded as morally obligatory. The reflection of this philosophy is often visible

in phrases like “Let justice be done through the heavens fall” or “Virtue is its own reward”.

Consequential philosophy, however, dictates that the fundamental point of reference of ethics is

precipice value that a particular action is bringing out. According to this theory, an action is judged

on the basis of the outcomes it produces (Elsevier, 2009).

Having said that, if an effort is made to explain the given case by applying both of these theories,

the very first question that comes to mind is “What is the outcome?”. This question frequently

arises in countless ethical paradoxical situations. The question here is based on which outcome the

action should be judged. Here the action is “making an exception to the policy” and outcomes are

at one side the wellbeing of a very sick person and on the other hand, as has been pointed out

previously, the interest of the “organization”, “other employees” and “the people trying to make

the exception happens”. Now if judged by solely on the wellbeing of Carol, the action qualifies as

good by any standard. However, if the long term impacts are taking under consideration; although

deontological theory considers this as a good action, the consequential philosophy might not. Be

that as it may, both of these theories are considered as highly essential in the study of ethics, and

finally, it can be said that there is no one right theory or no right answers when comes to ethical

paradox.

References

Elsevier/Pergamon Flexible Learning. (2009). Managing legal and ethical principles. Amsterdam.

Hutchinson, B. (2012). G.E. Moore's ethical theory. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University

Press.

Yarbro, C., Wujcik, D., & Gobel, B. (2011). Cancer nursing. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.