Consequentialism And Deontology
The moral obligation to one’s spouse is very important. If a person vows
to
love, honor and cherish until death do them part, then this before God and
all
who witness that to be true. If the actions of one or the other cause
a"rift" in the relationship then this could be the beginning of the end of
a
marriage. From a consequential point of view, the person knew what he or
she was
doing and also knew there would be malice results from the actions if
discovered
by the spouse. I believe the wife in the River Thought Experiment
saw it that
way. From a Deontology point of view, the individual was doing
what he or she
did because their spouse did not meet the "moral obligation"
of marriage to
them. Based on the above statement and with some great
thinking, my standing on
this topic is of a consequential viewpoint.
Basically, the wife knew "the job
was dangerous when she took it." This
refers to both the marriage and taking
on the extra marital affair she had to
endure with the boat owner in order for
her to get across the river to see
her husband. The wife has more then likely
come to the conclusion that if her
husband becomes aware the affair, there will
be sever repercussions. But I
can’t help but to relate back to the view of a
Deontologist for a moment.
I view the wife as a consequentialist and the husband
as a Deontologist in a
basic sense. The wife weighed the options that if she
wanted to see her
husband again she had to do what the boat owner wanted in
order for him to
give here a ride across the river. The option to have an extra
martial affair
to satisfy her isn’t a factor. As mentioned earlier as to the"consequences", the
outcome of what could happen if discovered by the
significant other. As for
the husband, this is a perfect case label for a
deontologist. The husband, as
any logical thinking person, should see it that
when you take the vow to
"love, honor, obey and cherish until death do you
part", that is one of the
most strongest agreements one can make in their life
to themselves and to the
other person. Most can agree with the idea the idea of
divorcing or at least
putting the cheater through the most possible discomfort
mentally and/or
physically for abandoning their "moral obligation" to the
marriage vows. The
married woman loved her husband enough to give the boat owner
whatever he
wanted just so that she could be with her husband. She viewed the
overall
good as to get across the river be with her husband. It is known that
the
consequences were weighed because when she asked the boat owner to help
her,
she was not willing to agree to his counterproposal. But only have the
she
thought about how much she loved and missed her husband was it that she
decided
to do whatever it took to be reunited with her husband. The husband
should be
more understanding and except the actions of his wife due to the
circumstances
of the overall situation. Deontology can’t be a factor in my
view of this
because the moral obligation was still met but because it was
the actions where
not something to be proud of. The wife so that to be true
and ever told her
husband what she had to do to be there with her husband,
but he turned his back
on her. The husband should take in consideration that
his wife made one of the
most severe sacrifice if not the most severe one
possible. It should be here
where a consequential point of view takes effect.
The husband should have
forgiveness in his heart for the over all good of
their relationship. He should
be letting his wife know that it is ok that her
actions, although were of bad
taste and against all that their marriage stood
for, that she loved him enough
to do whatever it took to get to his side and
also confide in him to tell him
the truth and want his forgiveness. So my
standing on is his deontologist
reaction is not fair or a correct view in
this case. The old lady that takes the
married woman in has a consequential
standpoint. This is an old woman who is all
alone in her home with know
friends or family. Since she can’t get across the
river because she’s too old
and weak to swim the harsh currents, she sees the
opportunity to no longer be
alone. Consequentially, she knows that if she turns
the married woman away
she’ll have no one to talk to and share her roof with.
But if she allows
the woman into her home, she’ll not only will she be doing a"good deed" for
herself so that she won’t be alone but also a good deed
for the married
woman. This could keep her sense of "moral obligation" to
others intact. I
guess it could be said, "help yourself by helping others".
Like everyone
else in the world, almost everything we do can relate to the"double edged
sword". The old lady will get a double profit from allowing
the married woman
into her house.... morally and to satisfy her need for
companionship. So on a
consequential point of view, I believe the old lady sees
the overall good to
not be alone anymore rather then to do a ‘good deed".
But why not make it
seem that since she’s a little old lady being nice that
she’s a morally good
person and that she’s only trying to help her fellow
man. I don’t believe in
the deontologist standpoint here because ever though
it can fall under the
classification, she was able to capitalize on relieving
her stress of someone
to communicate with in her house. To conclude my overall
stand on the
Consequentialism vs. Deontology, I believe that Consequentialism is
a better
principle on almost every situation. I believe this because that
everything
happens for a reason and that the issues have to be approached in a
logical
yet emotional charge. We should learn that when stuff happens in
life
sometimes it’s going to be good and sometimes it’s going to be bad. When
it
turns out to be bad and decisions have to be made, CONSEQUENTIALISM comes
into
play. Making decisions on things like what’s you’re going to have for
lunch
to where you want to buy your first house. When decisions have to be
made,
consequences should always be included or else life will more then
likely fall
around you. "Moral Obligation" is all fine and dandy but it’s not
a way of
life, as we know it anymore. Everything people do they want it to be
so that
they can be thought of as a good person. But it’s obvious that
everything has
been thought out in a consequential mindset. The society we
live in has many
prejudices and greed. We can’t do anything in our lives that
is "the right
thing to do". Plain and simple, it’s done for the over all good
with
consequences weighed and a final decision rendered. Because of economy
and
greed, we embrace Consequentialism and some of us don’t even know it.
The
everyday decisions we make from calling in sick to deciding if we should
hurry
back from lunch. I for one could take the assumption I live my life in
this way.
I’m always struggling with decisions about regular life
choices, weighing the
pros and cons per say. So after the putting much though
and from some
experience, I take a stand on Consequentialism over Deontology
for the reason I
believe that I look at everything with an open mind. By that
I mean I see
everything from more then one view and try to relate to it.
After being
introduced to this topic, I have a standpoint of Consequentialism
and believe in
it to the highest
degree.