A Vote for Deontology

Utilitarianism is the doctrine saying that what is useful is good. As Jeremy Bentham and James Mill outline, the aim is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This doctrine creates a series of calculations to determine best possible combination of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent that a decision could create. The focus is on the ends rather than the means. It would be ethical in the utilitarian sense to torture one child in order to keep the whole town happy—an example so well outlined by Ursula LeGuin in her short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.”

Critics say that this form of thought highlight the fact that it creates extreme pain for one person even if it means that everyone else is happy. It exploits minority groups who would be sacrificed in order to promote the majority. Additionally, it risks an unequal distribution of justice. The form of thought most prominent in the debate of utilitarian thought is deontology. Deontologists argue that predicting the outcomes of an action is impossible and that a person should focus on his own actions and the things that he himself can control.

Democracy is a form of government ruled by all the people, or all eligible people, of a state. It is often described as rule by the common people. It is characterized by designated equality of rights and privileges. Basically, all people have the same rights and abilities in a state. They are all entitled to an opinion. In a democratic society, the people would have to vote in order to decide actions of the state.

Critics, like Plato, display the downsides of democracy. It can often become difficult to make decisions quickly as people must discuss, vote, and semi-agree. Additionally, as not all people involved in government are influenced by higher knowledge, society is simplified so that all can participate. For Plato, of all the forms of government, aristocracy would have been the best as the good would be leading the bad from falling astray. Further criticism shows that control by the common people can result in what we often call a “majority rule.” The decision is made by finding the item receiving the most votes. Thinking back, this seems eerily similar to problems with utilitarianism in which the minority are exploited for benefit of the greatest number. In the case of democracy, it is not the ultimate benefit of the greatest good that is emphasized, but rather greater number simply overpowers the smaller no matter the outcome.

In this sense I think an extreme in either category of thought (utilitarianism or democracy) could be detrimental to a society or organization. I don’t necessarily agree with Plato, however, when he states that an aristocracy is the best form of government. I have thought in the past that the United State’s combination of republic and democracy made a successful form of government by the people that was also limited in what the majority could accomplish. However, it does not seem that exploitation of the minorities has been reduced (i.e. civil rights movements – though successful eventually, the trials and tribulations are extensive).

This leaves me with the deontological frame of thought. We discussed three main theorists of deontology – Kant, Gert, and Rawls. Of these three, Bernard Gert had the clearest reasoning in order to develop an ethical society. Gert states that “ethical principles are universal, unchanging, discovered not invented, and not dependent on the will or decision of individuals.” He also states that there are ten basic rules which “apply all other things being equal, and can be outweighed in very unusual circumstances.” Basically, there are certain principles inherent in our way of life that should be followed at all times – but there are also situations in which a leader must make a tough decision when the principles are challenged. If there were never circumstances in which hard decisions needed to be made, we would have no need for leaders.

Thus, I agree with the critics in the fact the complete utilitarianism and complete democracy may lead to mediocrity, or some form of detriment to society or an organization. There must always be balance in the extremes and it is often up to the leader to find the proper combination. By removing the ability to adapt as leaders, we set ourselves up for failure. Instead, we must stay open to all possibilities and find the frames of thought that guide us through often uncharted territories.

The Complexity of Leadership

If there is one thing I have learned during this fellowship it is that ethics are anything but simple. The complexity of various situations and the extent of ethical history leave me wondering for hours over what is truly “right.”

People, or leaders, who fail to recognize the complexity of ethical behavior become prone to rash, uninformed actions. This became clear in our debate over dropping the atomic bombs in Japan, to use an extreme example.

The decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima entailed a number of ethical considerations before the final decision was made – and even after all of that, years later, there is still a debate as to whether the right choice was made.

Truman had to consider the lives of American citizens in the country he was to be leading. He had to consider the lives of Japanese citizens who equally deserve simple respect simply because they are people—but also who were fighting under bushido code, meaning they would fight to the death no matter what. He had to consider the actions of other countries like the Soviet Union and what consequences those actions would have and how dropping the bomb would affect the way these countries viewed and interacted with the United States. He had to consider the long term effects of introducing nuclear warfare in to the world. 

With all of these considerations, a simple statement such as “don’t harm others” is inadequate. Without being critical or “playing devil’s advocate” as some would say, not all of these considerations would have been brought to light. It would not have been considered that a warning should have been delivered before hand, or why a conditional surrender was offered and what that would have entailed, or that communication with Hiroshima would be completely cut off after the bomb and what that would mean for the country. And many of these things were not considered – but are discussed in the present day as people still try to muddle through the bombing and what was or was not ethical.

It is true that these implications can create a substantial task for a leader as he considers a decision. It can be easy, then, to try and disregard several aspects. People may stop themselves from asking the hard questions or fail to push themselves to look at all of sides of a situation. They take the easy way out, or lump groups together and ignore certain consequences, thus developing the uncritical relativist approach to a more complex aspect of leadership.

To prevent this, a leader, or even a person simply trying to act ethically, must put himself in a position in which he is supported in all aspects of tough situations. We read an example of this in the speech at West Point – a recommendation that leaders should have solitude in order to think and reflect with themselves, but that they should also have someone around to talk to, bounce ideas with, and get advice about life and decisions. Someone one can trust and be honest with. Similarly, in a play I’ve been working on, two of the characters, though complete opposites, visit each other constantly and debate about current topics in their lives and in the town. They talk about life decisions and serious matters as well as frivolous things like gossip. They disagree often and they argue, but it helps them figure things out. When asked why they spend time together, Elsa, the younger of the characters, states that it is because Helen challenges her. She has developed a relationship that keeps her on her toes, thinking and questioning. Elsa knows herself and her beliefs better because of Helen. Even as I have been sitting composing this journal entry, I have been bouncing ideas off of Liz, and she’s been doing the same with me. Our entries are more thought out and well composed after talking and brainstorming with each other and figuring out the answers to the harder or confusing questions.

Often times, ethics cannot be figured out on one’s own. We all come from differing backgrounds and influences, with have different perceptions of the world and different ideas about the way people function. If we were to focus only on the way we think and feel, we would miss the ways of many different people around the world. Without these other perceptions, we lose the ability to perceive certain complexities when making ethical decisions and become blinded. We must surround ourselves with people who also make us think in order to really begin to understand the world around us and delve deep in to ethical discussion.