Deontology Vs. Consequentialism

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism


Two of the major schools of philosophical thought are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism argues that when one seeks to find normative properties depend on the consequences of an action. (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003) in other words, the ends can justify the means. Taken to its absurd conclusion, it would ethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients to save others if the “others” were of better benefit to society. A homeless person that was terminal could be used to save the life of a scientist or researcher that was close to the cure of a major disease even if the homeless person had not previously consented to having his organs harvested. After all it would be better for society to have a researcher alive than a homeless person that is using resources without contributing to society. While it is opinion I feel safe in saying that most would agree that it is unethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients. Consequentialism, at its absurd end would disagree.

Utilitarianism, being part of consequentialism, argues that we should work towards normative actions that are also part of the greater good. In our earlier example with a homeless person, it may be considered ethical to harvest the organs of all deceased homeless persons to prolong the life of other people who may go on to contribute to society. Again, this is an absurd conclusion.

Deontology, on the other hand, argues that Kantian principles of a categorical imperative, or a duty that is consistent across all people, should guide normative actions. (Alexander, 2007) In other words, moral and ethical norms guide decisions instead of consequences. Back to our example of our homeless man, if our ethical norm is that organs should not be harvested from non-consensual patients no matter the need, than we cannot harvest them no matter how many researches we may save.

However even deontology can be taken to its absurd end. If we assume that killing for any purpose is morally wrong, than we could not kill in self-defense or in a war where we are attacked.

The above examples serve to not only illustrate the differences between deontology and consequentialism but how they can be taken to their absurd ends. In most ethical dilemmas it is unlikely that most of us sit down decide which school of thought we are going to use. Many of us, who seek to act ethically, often seek to balance harm against good in our actions. That may be consistent with deontological thought or consequential thought. It depends on the given dilemma in front of us. However, understanding both schools of thought allows us a way to better understand our decisions and allows us insight into decisions. By deepening our knowledge of philosophical schools of thought we also begin to internalize processes for ethical decision-making.


















Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/






Alexander, L. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

The Train Dilemma!!

The train dilemma is a common thought-problem that pops up in most any ethical discussion. Below are my responses. In this question I assume the children are innocent. The old man presents a host of unknowns, some of which I will address.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

This one is fairly easy for me to answer as it’s just a basic utilitarian response. Of course I’d throw the switch and save five children to save one. Assuming that all the children are equal and with equal potential I’d save the five. However, should the five children be deficient in some manner and the single child be a prodigy I may choose to save the child that can benefit society the greatest. While such a thought is abhorrent and reeks of eugenics the point of this question is to look past the obvious. The utilitarian in me says that I should seek to save that which benefits all of us the most.

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Is the old man a doctor, a surgeon, a great thinker, or a researcher with a cure for disease? If so I would choose to save the old man though he may hate me for it (and I’d probably hate myself.) The children are untested variables and may grow into great thinkers or great criminals. We don’t know what they are going to do and thus their potential cannot be considered if a known variable (provided this variable is a great positive) is available.

Should I know nothing about the old man, I would choose to save the children. The children do possess potential and the old man may be near the end of his. All other things being equal it is better to save future potential than potential that has run its course.

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

In some ways this isn’t a fair question as it ignores the biological imperative we have to protect our own children. Of course not everyone has a need to protect their own children and we see them paraded on the news as monsters. This is not a label that I entirely disagree with though I find dehumanizing anyone to be path to moral ruin.  If I apply the same logic as I did in question two and my child is a person of low potential, I should save the old man. However, such an act would be beyond the pale and the idea of being able to sacrifice my child for the greater good is not one that I could accept.  It is an interesting question as it tests one’s resolve to a moral purity but moral purity cannot overcome such a strong biological drive as protecting one’s own child. 

A631.5.4.RB - Leading System Wide Change

In your reflection blog, consider how difficult it must be for a leader to grow into a person who can lead a system-wide change effectively. Perhaps you remember leaders who attempted system wide interventions but failed because they were not capable of pulling it all together. On the other hand, you may know leaders who were able to do what you thought would be impossible. From your point of view now, what is required for a leader to be successful?

So it has been far too long since I've been here. I'd like to say that I have some great reason but after three years and a host of life events I'm running out of steam. So for the three of you that read this I will endeavor to be more reliable. For my professor, I offer apologies and no excuses. Though if you have any words of wisdom for a student hitting the wall please feel free to email them to me.

Anyhoo...I should get to answering the above questions!

What is required for a leader to be successful?

I have often held that emotional intelligence is one the keys to successful leadership. That being said, another key is the ability to get along with people. It seems simple on the surface but highly unique people can carry some undesirable traits. Einstein was a womanizer and Alfred Hitchcock was highly vindictive; both of these men rose to the tops of their fields despite these faults. It is speculative but in some ways I argue that having a certain part of you personality that is like biting on tinfoil is required to rise to the top. At some point one has to take a stand and not be afraid to make hard choices. That being said, the same personality traits that lead to being able to make hard choices are the same traits that allow someone to become selfish or vindictive.

This is why I argue knowing one's self and knowing one's own emotional reaction to stimuli is paramount to successful leadership across a multi-variable spectrum. Einstein really just did math, Hitchcock just made movies, they weren't truly leading across different spectrums. I order to accomplish such a feat a leader has to build a support network, create a common vision, bring together disparate goals, and remove or convert subversion. This takes people skills! People skills is such a colloquial term but I think it is germane to the discussion. Charm, vision, sense of humor, principles, assertion without aggression, these are all people skills and without them it is likely that a leader will self-destruct at a certain level.

I have seen this in action. I worked for a supervisor that seemed to be in a position just beyond his abilities. In many ways he was a good leader but he lacked the ability to see beyond himself. This led to conflicts with other departments, increased tensions with staff, and a decrease in production. In time things began to entropy as the system turned on itself and what started out as an attempt to create change across all systems ended up with squabbling factions. It was rather fascinating to watch.

I think growth into a leader is incredibly difficult. I believe that a good mentor is needed, as well as ability to accept feedback. Without proper guidance the path to success is very hard. I know for myself I see where I am struggling and part of that is I don't have a good support structure in place. My own failures have led to a self-assessment where I need to scale back outside activities to focus on core goals. This took some hard knocks and it has helped me understand that no one succeeds in a vacuum.

A631.2.5.RB - Cooperation and Competition

New class, new subjects for the blog. For this week I am looking at the process that went into forming a geographically separated team. This team will form a work-group throughout the weeks to come


What behaviors seemed to help your team successfully complete its task?

Communication was key. In this week I was the weak link in communication as I had overlooked the project being assigned so early. As a result my communication wasn't timely and therefore not helpful. While I added my inputs towards the end of the week they were not useful as a whole. The other team members were not able to make use of my data. Thankfully, the data inputs are individual and not requiring processing or I would have set them back.

What factors inhibited decision-making or problem-solving?

Geographic separation encompassing several time zones is the biggest issue. Had everyone been on my time zone the deadlines would have been easier to manage. Additionally, until my inputs were in place it was impossible for me to be reached. This makes it even more difficult for the team to be able to understand what is happening.

How much time was spent on decision-making and problem-solving?

This would be hard to answer without knowing how long it took each person to formulate their parts of the charter. I know my contributions were fairly straight forward. Also, we would need a defined problem to solve to truly answer this question.

How was information shared among team members?

Information appeared to be shared openly and evenly. Contact numbers and emails were exchanged which should facilitate future information sharing. Information was not always given in a timely fashion but that was more my failing than the team's failing.

How did issues of authority or power affect the team?

They did not seem to affect the team at all. This was a straightforward assignment with very little need for interventions or process examination. True issues of power tend to develop when there is more than one way to solve the issues. This assignment did not lend itself to that paradigm. Additionally, all members have done these before and are practiced in the information needed. Having this experience removed any need for direction or true authority.

How did collaboration and competition influence the outcome?

The team seemed to be very collaborative. The outcome was influenced by one team member posting close to the end of the deadline. The aforementioned issues played a part in this outcome.

Did team members make process interventions?

They didn't seem to be needed. The members of the team have all done this type of work in the past. Having done that type of work the team was able to smoothly add information and produce a product. Once again, as the projects grow in complexity this will change.

x

Hiring and Recruiting

Watch this awesome video. I really enjoy learning about Google's culture and I hope you do to!

1. Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?

Yes it does. I love flat cultures and I like recruiting to fit an atmosphere rather than a job. Not having huge hierarchies allows people to feel very empowered. When they know they are free to pursue their own projects and are supported in this idea it goes even further towards creating an empowered and trusting employees. These types of cultures also fosters innovation. Centralized command stifles innovation and having worked for an organization where centralized command is the norm I can tell you that I feel very nervous floating new ideas. I often joke with a few trusted co-workers that I have angered the Collective and while most of them don't get the Start Trek reference they at least get the idea that I feel we are expected to be drones (if you click that link a guy shows up at your door and gives you back your virginity).

2. Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?

I wish. Working in a hospital means that I have to have somewhat stricter guidelines than programming. However, that being said, I think it would be nice if teams dedicated to program improvement were given more latitude to make decisions. Suffice it to say we are not particularly innovative and that bothers me a great deal. It seems we repeat the same things over and over and hope that somehow results will just magically appear. I have always enjoyed process improvement and I actually plan on loaning out this class's textbook to a few people to see if I can gain some small amount of traction.


3 As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view? Could this backfire?

I think it just takes faith in your employees. It isn't comfortable relinquishing control. And I see how managers have been burned by placing trust in weak employees. I am a union supporter but they can make it difficult to remove obstinate employees or implement organizational change. So when a manager wants to empower an employee he or she needs to be careful to pick trusted employees. Trust is a two-way street but I do see how managers often have more to lose. It can take a great deal of courage to be willing to make mistakes to find those correct employees.


4. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

That I need to apply to Google, or a firm that specializes in helping create the type of culture that Google has established. I am not in a place where I am truly empowered to make decisions and that can be very frustrating. I also don't think any great changes will be coming around any time soon. I work for an organization that still thinks flash-drives will activate Skynet if plugged into the computer. Overall I think it takes external pressure to create new cultures in well-established organizations. When there is no incentive for change it becomes very hard for new ideas to take hold.

Corporate Re-invention

These past two weeks have had me pulling my hair out getting ready for a national inspection. As this affects our accreditation as a hospital I will leave it to your imagination to visualize how busy it's been. So this is a no-frills post. Enjoy!


1. Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, states that Honeywell will not be an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal. He is creating a new culture that blends the best of the merged companies of Honeywell and Allied Signal. He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not. Do you predict Honeywell will be successful?

The nice thing about being Honeywell is that you are Honeywell. They have their presence in so many aspects of electronics and defense that they can still fail upwards. 

If the question asks if I think the merger of cultures will be successful than I can say that I believe it will. It won't be an easy transition but ultimately people will go along if they feel supported and valued. It's amazing the return on investment one can get from simply letting people know they are supported even in times of trial. By adding in an incentive measure the CEO is letting people know that contributions to this change will be valued and that also can secure some buy-in. 

2. What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?

The biggest barrier I can see will be psychosocial in nature. The employees of the bigger Honeywell, and this is pure supposition, may feel that they are the "bigger brother" and that since theirs is the acquiring company the smaller company's employees should be doing the listening. This is not in line with the CEO's vision for the company's future. It would behoove Mr. Bonsignore to let Honeywell know that the smaller company is an investment in the future of Honeywell and is not to be seen as a lame duck that needed rescuing.

A second barrier would be the sheer size of the merger. In smaller companies it would be easier to merge two cultures, if the company is small enough the cultures can be merged over pizza and beer. With Honeywell there are geographic challenges, layers of managers with varying degrees of loyalty and competency, and thousands of employees for whom change is very scary. To assume that this will go smoothly would be fantasy. A steady and patient guidance will be needed. 

3. What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?


Though it can be hard to measure I would list morale as a big success factor. Honeywell needs skilled and motivated workers in order to survive. Skilled and unmotivated workers will lead to stagnation. The merger will strain morale (more in some areas than others) and watching for upticks here will be important.

 Increased shareholder value is an obvious metric for success. This is largely dependant on getting the new system working as quickly as possible.

 These first two will build a third factor of public perception. Once again this is hard to quantify but increased sales, positive press, actual growth, and favorable returns are generally good indicators of how the public is perceiving a company to be functioning. I think these are too often viewed as separate entities rather than the all-encompassing concept. Wal-Mart's recent market woes are largely due to the public perceiving their labor practices to be poor. They may very well be poor or they may very well be industry standard. If the latter is the case Wal-Mart forgot they ARE the standard due to their size and as such the public will focus its attention there. Honeywell is not in the same market and caters to a different demographic but the paradigm can be the same.

4. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

 I am trying to focus on learning how to use small changes in a resistant system to formulate bigger changes downstream. I am not ready for a Honeywell merger or a culture shift as the system in which I operate still thinks that I plug in a flash drive I will activate Skynet and bring doom to mankind. In essence, I hope to bank this insight for a time when I can formulate bigger change. Right not I work with the tools at hand.

50 Reasons Not to Change

Change is frightening for many. It removes us from our comfort zones and  challenges us to think of new ways of doing things. Hopefully change is something that happens to all of us, but as we know it is often avoided and we do so with a variety of excuses.

1. How do you react when you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic?

My personal pet peeve is hearing "we've always done it this way." It really does drive me nuts. My initial resonse is to ask "does that mean it cannot be done more efficiently?" It is rare that things cannot be improved upon, but even if the examination determines that a particular system component is working correctly that does mean that it should be exempt from future examination. The world is constantly changing and what works today might not work tommorrow. There needs to be constant feedback and examination of processes.

"It needs committee study." I hear this and I know that nothing will be done...ever. Languishing in committee is the death knell of any proposed change. Yes I get that topics need to be discussed and data gathered but to consistently refer to committee tells me that you are unable to make a decision.

2. Do you ever use any of these excuses yourself?

I am often hampered by lack of equipment so I have avoided some change by using that excuse. In my defense the proposed changes did not include the equipment and support needed to carry them out. I can only devise so many workarounds before the change is worse than the problem it was meant to fix.

3. How can you overcome the thinking that creates those responses to change efforts?

It can be very difficult to overcome these entrenched mentalities. Often cognitive dissonace sets in and the target becomes even MORE resistant to change. In many ways this has to be overcome before the change process really starts. In other words, the target has to see a need for change. In the private sector falling sales or monetary losses will often drive change. Even then, there will be resistance and you will probably lose some people depending on the scope of the change.

Once change is in progress it may be that you have to employ coercion techniques, persuasion, compromise, or even outright directive approaches to overcome entrenchement. I prefer reasoned discussions but often people become emotionally invested in their positions, then I find it useful to explore the whats-in-it-for-them portion of the equation. That way they are able to transfer emotions to the new concept.

4. Do you agree with Seth Godin’s concept that change is driven by tribes?

A bigger discussion can be found here where a comparison of Godlin's Tribe Theory and Watt's approach to Influence can be found. Tribe theory is based on a interlocking relationships and those relationships are not always clearly defined. As with any tribe there are a mulitude of variables in play among those relationships such as politics, friendships, romances, and any other human to human interaction possible. This isn't particulary new but it does help frame the discussion in a way that stops setting such clear views boundaries of leadership and influence. And THAT is something with which I can agree. Leading people takes more than strategy (thought that has to be there) it takes an understanding of the relationships and connections among the followers.

5. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

I work for an organization that can be very slow to change. There aren't a great deal of external motivators in play to force change. This has led to a great many entrenched managers. Understanding how these paradigms of resistance have been put in place has been instrumental in trying to change my small corner of the world.