Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Telling the Truth: Consequentialism vs. Deontology
Introduction
There are numerous different moral dilemmas people encounter over the course of their lives. Humans are social animals, which means that it is crucial for them to navigate a complex world of relationships in order to function efficiently in modern society. This often implies situations in which one must decide whether, to tell the truth. People mostly have a personal moral compass that guides them towards the right choice. Some individuals tend to make moral judgments by contemplating the consequences of potential lies. Others automatically choose the truth since they believe in the universal laws of rightness and wrongness. They act upon the rule Thou shalt not lie. The main difference between the two approaches is that while some people focus on the consequences of their lies, others reject the idea completely. The purpose of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of consequentialist and deontological theories by applying both of them to practical scenarios. These insights will be helpful in generating an optimal course of action for anyone presented with the moral dilemma of telling a lie vs. staying truthful.
The Consequentialist Take on Lies
Consequentialism is a commonly practiced moral theory in real-life scenarios. The ends justify the means is an aphorism often used to describe the principles of this approach. According to consequentialists, the only proper way to act is based on a cost-benefit analysis of an action (LaFollete, 2006). When a person makes a decision based on this theory, they first determine possible good and bad outcomes and estimate whether the total good outweighs the total bad. Consequentialism is, in turn, divided into three normative theoretical approaches. Proponents of utilitarianism argue that a person should consider the consequences of their actions on all the parties involved in a particular scenario. Ethical altruists believe that consequentialism excludes the actor. Therefore, an action should be considered moral if its consequences are favorable to everyone, except the actor. The last subdivision of consequentialism is ethical egoism an approach that opposes altruism and states that one should only act based on their own self-interest, which determines what consequences are favorable.
The consequentialist perspective argues that a lies morality or immorality depends on its outcomes. If the consequences of the lie help someone, then it can be considered good and allowable. If the lies outcomes have the potential to harm anyone, then it is deemed bad and unallowable (Schein & Gray, 2018). Lies are usually self-interested or others-oriented. Both of these can be good if their consequences are not harmful. On the other hand, even a lie that aims to help others can be immoral if its long-term consequences are potentially bad. Therefore, it is apparent that consequentialists focus on the outcomes of the act, rather than the nature of the act itself.
Applying the Theory
Moral dilemmas tend to be especially critical in healthcare settings. According to the proponents of consequentialism, it is so because potential outcomes of medical decisions can be either exceptionally bad or have the ability to save someones life. Nurses, for instance, have a professional responsibility to care for their patients. One of the key principles of medical practice is not to inflict any harm. However, one recent study claims that over 90 percent of registered nurses believe that it is sometimes ethical to lie to their patients (Hart, 2019). Telling a lie, in their opinion, can serve the noble purpose of protecting a patient from an overly emotional reaction or preventing them from becoming stressed (Hart, 2019). Based on the consequentialist theory, nurses who choose to lie to their patients often consider their actions moral since their dishonesty serves a larger goal of facilitating patients with the necessary care.
In the world of sports, coaches utilize consequentialist approaches in order to create the appropriate conditions for their trainees to succeed. For example, a gymnast training for the Olympics has lost her grandmother. Her parents and the coach make a decision not to tell her about her grandmas death. Even when she explicitly asks her mother about the well-being of her grandmother, she is assured that everything is fine. According to the consequentialist theory, the parents and the coach acted morally when they agreed to lie. Telling the girl about her grandmothers death would potentially take a mental toll on her, which could affect her training process and overall performance in the competition. The cost-benefit assessment demonstrated that all the years of training and sacrifices could not go to waste due to the unfortunate death of a grandparent.
The Deontological Take on Lies
An ethical theory that opposes consequentialism is deontology. Proponents of the deontological approach believe that every action can be deemed moral or immoral based on the universal laws of what is right and wrong (Hart, 2019). The act of killing is inherently wrong. The same can be applied to lying, cheating, and stealing. According to this theory, every person has the ability to navigate their moral decision-making by choosing what is moral and ignoring the immoral. Deontologists argue that regardless of the consequences of ones actions, some actions are universally right and wrong due to each individuals inner moral duty (LaFollete, 2006). Therefore, deontology functions on the assumption that there are, in fact, specific rules, maxims, and traditions that one must uphold.
When it comes to lying, there are no in-betweens for the proponents of deontology. Dishonesty contradicts the moral law, and, therefore, can be considered bad and deemed unallowable (Hart, 2019). Every individual has a moral duty to be truthful, which is why deontologists deny consequentialist justifications of lying. They focus on the nature of the cat, instead of its short and long-term outcomes. Self-interested lies go against the cultural and religious rules that encourage people to be honest. Others-oriented lies, in turn, are still acts of dishonesty. They violate a certain maxim, which does not require further analysis of the lies positive and negative consequences. Deontology argues that there are no good or white lies (Hart, 2019). No matter how trivial and well-intentioned the lie might be, it goes against the moral code. Furthermore, dishonest acts rob people of their autonomy (Hart, 2019). By telling lies, a person strips another individual of their sense of reality. They can no longer make decisions in an objective manner.
Applying the Theory
An example of dishonesty as a means to strip a person of their autonomy is the story of the Olympic gymnast. The coach and parents may think that they have made the right decisions by lying to the girl about the death of her grandmother. However, according to deontological reasoning, their actions were immoral for two different reasons. Firstly, the coach and parents lies could be considered inherently bad and unallowable since they violated the maxim against dishonesty. Secondly, the parents and the coach deprived the girl of her opportunity to emotionally respond to her grandmas death in real-time. Moreover, it prevented her from saying last goodbyes, attending a funeral, and grieving. This seemingly altruistic lie could also affect the girls relationship with her parents and coach. The girl is less likely to trust her athletic advisors and coaches after the incident. She could develop trust issues with her family as well. The consequences of a lie are complex and unpredictable. This is one of the reasons why deontologists argue for complete honesty in every possible scenario. Navigating the chaotic world of moral decision-making can be overwhelming, which is why deontology presents a clear and speedy solution.
Conclusion
It is apparent that it is hard for any individual to navigate the vast majority of moral dilemmas due to their complexity. Consequentialists argue that moral decisions should be made in accordance with the outcomes of such decisions. Deontologists, on the other hand, focus on moral laws. They believe that one must act based on the universal principles of what is right and wrong. There is an argument for dishonesty, according to proponents of consequentialism. Telling lies is completely unjustifiable based on deontological reasoning. The optimal solution for a scenario where one is faced with the choice of staying truthful or telling a lie lies somewhere in between. While it is important to make decisions based on ones own moral duty, it can be helpful to assess the long-term consequences of ones actions.
References
Hart, C. L. (2019). Is it always wrong to lie? Psychology Today.
LaFollete, H. (2006). The practice of ethics (1st ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.