A634.2.4.RB_DiazBrian

Consequentialism is defined as "the theory that the value and especially the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences" (Merriam-Webster, para. 1, 2015).  Yet, who determines if the value of the act is just?  Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races.  After much debate, scrutiny, and eventual evidence, he admitted to using performance enhancing drugs to gain his competitive advantage.  Through the sport of cycling, Armstrong became very involved in giving to the community. "In 1985, the Armstrong Foundation was formed to enhance the neighborhoods in which we live and work. Millions of dollars each year have been donated to community caring efforts" ("The Armstrong," 2015).  He raised millions of dollars towards education and scientific research.  He accomplished all of these goals while cheating.  He knew he had cheated.  Did he justify what he was doing because of his philanthropy?  Even after results concluded he cheated, Armstrong continued to deny the allegations and painted a picture of a cancer survivor that had done so much good for so many.  Maybe in his mind he justified cheating because of all of the people he was helping.  Not to mention he earned millions upon millions from endorsements because of his Tour wins.  Should Lance Armstrong be considered the modern day Robin Hood or a cautionary tale of a narcissistic athlete obsessed with fame and fortune?  Morality is the value used to measure the consequence of our actions.  It can be argued that individuals justify their actions based on their interpretation of right and wrong.  It seems society gets to decide the fate of those whose behavior effects others.  Armstrong is an example of someone that was tried in the court of public opinion, and lost. 
 

Deontology can be defined as "ethics, especially that branch dealing with duty, moral obligation, and right action" ("Dictionary.com," 2015).  Deontology is the duty or obligation to act either in adherence to or in accordance to rules or regulations.  Our police officers are obligated to uphold the laws of our country.  Our service men and women have a duty to protect us from our enemies domestic or foreign.  These individuals are faced with decisions on a daily basis that can have consequences of considerable magnitude.  Are these individuals always able to follow the rules and regulations that govern them?  Thankfully we are not a race of robots that are programmed to follow rules without weighing the consequences ourselves.  In the movie A Few Good Men, marines are ordered to carry out a "code red" by their commanding officer.  They do as they are ordered and the result of their actions is that the marine they assault dies.  Was it their duty to "teach a lesson" to the marine they were ordered to assault?  I never had the honor to serve our country but I can imagine the moral dilemma I would have if faced with this decision.  Would I disobey a direct order even though I knew it was morally wrong or would I stand by my convictions and face the penalty for my disobedience.  It is indeed a slippery slope.  In life we are certain to be faced with these type of decisions.  If I worked for a company and I knew I could make them more money by taking a short cut I knew was against the rules would I do it if no one would ever know?  One person would know for sure... that would be me.  It would not be worth my job and my family's security for me to make such a decision. 

LaFollette (2007) wrote "Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences" (p. 22).   Both of these theories leave so much room for interpretation that making the right decision can be so difficult that it can be easy to doubt one's self.  In our train example we were forced to make a decision based on consequentialism.  What decision resulted in the most favorable outcome?  Depends on who you ask.  Deontology dictates we should follow rules to the letter.  I am reminded of the saying that "rules are meant to be broken".  Both theories provide topics of which can be debated heavily through many different lenses.  Which lens would you choose to view them through?

Consequentialism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequentialism

Deontology (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deontology

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.  

The Armstrong Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.armstrong.com/corporate/armstrong-foundation/