|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
The Ethics of Nuclear Strategy
| Article
# : |
11185 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1986 |
4,708 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
There are many different types of moral analysis or moral theory, but they tend to fit into two broad categories: deontological ethics and the ethics of consequences. In deontological ethics, one is obliged to do that which is right regardless of motives or consequences. The ethics of consequences, on the other hand, evaluates moral behavior by its expected outcome.
In my writing in the field of moral theory, I have argued that neither approach can be used exclusively. If one distribution of the funds would save a hundred lives and another distribution would save a thousand lives, surely the moral decision would be to make the second distribution: that is, to give overriding weight to the consequences of the decision. On the other hand, in combat, for instance, we expect soldiers to come to the aid of their comrades even though they forfeit their lives in doing so.
No society could survive severe environmental or social disturbances in the absence of at least some deontological rules. For instance, during the water shortage in New York City in the 1960s, when the mayor asked the citizens to take baths rather than showers, violation of that edict by a particular person in the privacy of his own home would cost others only an infinitesimal amount of water. Clearly, in the absence of a moral rule, those who preferred showers would take showers. If many citizens had that preference, however, the water supply would have been threatened. Only a deontological moral rule can prevent this.
An interesting thing about deontological moral rules is that they do not need to be obeyed without exception to be effective. Violators can be
... (1995 of 26644 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
