The different approaches to ethics based upon teleology, deontology,
and contractualism potentially condone a wide range of actions by
Frank to address the problem with Tony. Frank could report Tony's
problems to his employer or return Tony to his previous position and
lie about his reasons for doing so. Depending upon the ethical
approach he took, Frank could justify either action as having been
ethical
Teleology and deontology are almost exact opposites in terms of how
they determine what is ethical behavior:
"Teleology: What you achieve by your action determines moral status of action.
Deontology: What you do in your action, the nature of the action
itself, determines its moral status."
"Deontological Ethics" http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/nwcourses/rfield/274ppt/PP07.htm
Both Kantianism and contractualism are deontological theories.
"Contractualism: an act is wrong if it violates those constraints
which any rational person, considering the matter in a way which
favors no one's particular interests, would agree should be imposed."
"Research Ethics and Responsibilities" by Bob Wengert (January 26,
2005) http://www.life.uiuc.edu/mcb/580/Wengert_2005.pdf
"Kantianism, the first of two deontological theories, can similarly be
applied. German philosopher Immanual Kant said the moral status of an
action is not determined by its consequences. According to him,
moralagents are obligated to perform those actions that accord with
the fundamental demand that agents should treat others, and
themselves, in a way that is consistent with human dignity."
"The ethical theory contractarianism, or contractualism, ideally
states that ethical obligations are consequences of contracts
involving hypothetical consent. The agreements are not actual, but
represent those that moral agents would rationally make in
relationshipsfor their mutual benefit."
"Introduction to Ethics"
http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/nwcourses/rfield/274guide/ethicspaper.pdf
In the case of teleology, a classic formulation is "the ends justify
the means," a view popularized by Machiavelli in "The Prince." In his
book, "Collapse," Jared Diamond (2005) contrasts the economic status
of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, two countries that share the
island of Hispaniola. Diamond observes that per capita income is five
times higher in the Dominican Republic than it is in Haiti, partially
because the Dominican Republic has avoided some environmental damage
experienced by Haiti by remaining 28% forested compared to only 1% of
Haiti.
One reason that the Dominican Republic has remained much more forested
is that the dictator Balaguer in the Dominican Republic enforced laws
prohibiting logging with the military. In 1967, a raid on an illegal
logging camp resulted in a dozen loggers being shot, and additional
shootings of illegal loggers continued during subsequent years. These
actions greatly decreased the amount of illegal logging occurring in
the Dominican Republic. Combined with other environmental protection
measures, including the establishment of forestry reserves covering
nearly a third of the country, Balaguer was successful in maintaining
a substantial portion of the Dominican Republic's forests. In
contrast, Haiti was transformed from being the more wealthy of the two
countries agriculturally to being nearly completely deforested.
Because the protection of Dominican forests has allowed the population
to avoid many of Haiti's environmental and economic problems,
teleology would view the shooting of the illegal loggers as having
been ethical because it played a significant role in preserving the
forests. In contrast, deontology would view these actions as having
been unethical because the murder of illegal loggers simply cannot be
an ethical act, no matter what the consequences. Deontology even
opposes the death penalty when someone commits a horrendous crime
because killing is inherently unethical, so applying the death penalty
to illegal logging is even more unethical. Contractualism would view
the shooting of the illegal loggers as being extreme and irrational,
and therefore unjustified.
In the particular case of Frank and Tony, teleology would justify
Frank lying to his employer to allow Tony to return to his prior
position if he was able to resume his previous level of performance.
The ends of the company retaining a good performer would justify the
lie. However, Tony's drinking problem would remain unaddressed, and
Frank would have violated his employer's policy about reporting job
performance problems, particularly those potentially jeopardizing the
safety of customers and employees. In addition, Frank would be
placing himself, the company, and Tony in a very bad position if
Tony's problem led to a serious accident.
The deontological view would be that Frank needs to follow the
company's policy and report Tony's problems. In the deontological
approach, Tony's drinking problem needs to be treated, and the
employer needs to be informed so that the safety risk to its employees
and customers represented by Tony's drinking, particularly on the job,
is minimized. Furthermore, encouraging Tony to get treatment for his
drinking problem to decrease his dependency on alcohol would enhance
his human dignity, which is consistent with a deontological approach.
Contractualism would view that Tony, by working for the company which
has the clearly stated policy of reporting poor performance monthly,
has at least hypothetically consented to Frank reporting his drinking
problem and associated problems at work to the company. Furthermore,
by working for the company, Frank has consented to following the
policy of reporting problems that he is aware of. As a result, it
would be ethical for Frank to report the problem to his employer.
My personal preference would be to follow the deontological approach
out of concern for Tony's health and safety, as well as for the safety
of the company's customers and employees. Allowing Tony to return to
his previous position and continue to hide his alcohol dependence is
not ethical in my view because his human dignity is significantly
impaired. Frank cannot be certain that Tony's performance will
improve if he has returned to his previous position, nor can he
tolerate placing the company's customers and other employees in
jeopardy now that he is aware that Tony is potentially unsafe. The
drinking on the job is particularly problematic and simply cannot be
ignored, even at the risk of Tony losing his job. If an adverse event
were to occur, the company could be placed in a very bad legal
position if it can be demonstrated that Frank was aware of the problem
and did nothing about it. Furthermore, Frank would be placing himself
in jeopardy if the company later discovered he had covered up Tony's
problem, even if an accident did not occur.
Sincerely,
Wonko |
,
0 Comments
)