Consequentialism And Deontology The moral obligation to ones 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 cant 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 isnt 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 cant 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 cant get across the river because shes 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 shell have no one to talk to and share her roof with. But if she allows the woman into her home, shell not only will she be doing a”good deed” for herself so that she wont 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 shes a little old lady being nice that shes a morally good person and that shes only trying to help her fellow man. I dont 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 its going to be good and sometimes its 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 whats youre 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 its 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 its obvious that everything has been thought out in a consequential mindset. The society we live in has many prejudices and greed. We cant do anything in our lives that is “the right thing to do”. Plain and simple, its 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 dont 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. Im 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.