Consequentialism And Deontology Will Be Critically Discussed Philosophy Essay

Consequentialism And Deontology Will Be critically Discussed Philosophy EssayConsequentialism and deontology will be critically discussed on their feign on mental seek. The following argonas will be discussed on how the cracking theories link with the bits per second (British Psychological order of magnitude) guideposts. How current studies have bear upon on twain philosophical estimates and the BPS good guidelines. Additionally, it will conclude that a mixture of both theories is more lessonly and ethically valid.The deontological theory has impacted on psychological seek as it betokens that human beings argon concern so act only match to that maxim by which you bathroom at the same time will that it should become a ecumenical law (Kant, 1985 p. 422). This is similar to the BPS guidelines which promote ethical behaviour (BPS, 2000).For pillowcase Milgram (1963) was slated for non being ethically valid however, there were no ethical guidelines during his era ( Youngpeter, 2008). Yet, this allowed him to investigate the role of obedience and how this make believes a psyches moral value. In addition, how the participants were going to behave and the appearcome of the study was unexpected (Russell, 2009). This supports rule-consequentialists who surround that eve if there were ethical guidelines in rough cases erupting some rules energy be beneficial overall, rather than a world where separates ascertain whether some rules should be kept or non (Eggeston, 2007).The impact of the consequentialism theory would argue that current sound reflections of obedience studies are not ethically valid because the participants top executive think they are harming another soul thereof causing the individual stress (Burger, 2009). This suggest that the investigate was not maximising the good and supports the BPS code of conduct (2009) which claim that participants must(prenominal) be protected from animal(prenominal) and mental harm. Howe ver, replication studies of Milgram (1963) have found that, whilst societal attitudes and changes can propel behaviour, the guide indicted that the same situational factors that restoreed obedience in Milgrams sample is in time present today (Burger 2009). This then outweighs the discomfort in the participants because it can justify the role of authority figures during World War 2 and the present day, thus the research was maximising the good. In addition, one important implication of Burgers (2009) replication study was that it did not violate any ethical guidelines, as the research excluded great deal with a history of psychological or emotional problems (Burger, 2009, p.10). And the participants were debriefed at the end. Furthermore, the current research links with a consequentialist strength that pleasure is good and suffering is bad (Sinnott-Armstrong 2009). However, consequentialism has issues which surround the idea that if people lived by producing the trounce prac tical balance of good over bad then it would not be maximised because people would make miscalculations, allow their personalised biases to interfere thus, it whitethorn distort their decisions (Shand, 2003). Furthermore, it was found that consequentialism is very demanding as individuals might have to annul personal projects in order to maximise the good and to resolve issues (McNaughton and Rawling,1998). Similarly, deontology allows the consideration of a persons autonomy, which allows us to assign more weight to our own personal desires and values (Singer, 1993). Consequently, this will make sure we avoid wrongdoings therefore argues that actions are more important than the consequences (Singer, 1993).Kants argues that the moral worth of an action is not obstinate by its consequences because it is possible that someone does something out of a good use but ends up bringing about bad consequences (Shand, 2003). Reicher and Haslam (2006) caused stress among the guards and pris oners which violated the ethical code of protection, thus bringing about bad consequences. However, the research provides insight into how social roles can trap us into behaving against what we believe is morally wrong (Reicher and Haslam 2011). This would relate back to a consequentialism idea, that it whitethorn be appal to think of harming the one person but it must be equally appalling to think not of doing so and as a result allowing, the killing of many people (Singer, 1993). Thus maximising the good for the great number. Nevertheless, deontology argues that the flop should not be defined in terms of the good, the worthiness of the ultimate consequence does not guarantee the make upness of the actions which produced them (Fried, 1978, p.9). According to deontologists, it is perspicuous that the interests of the many does not count nor does it count equally and if they did then it would be obligatory to save all of them and harm the one (Singer, 1993). Furthermore, deon tologists forbid harm and criticise consequentialism because it leaves no room for personal autonomy (Singer, 1993). In addition, critics of consequentialism would argue that it would lead an individual to do horrendous deeds, so long as they promise the best consequences (Singer, 1993, p.234), thus consequentialism would support the killing of innocent people however, they argue that the theory should not be judged on wild supposed(prenominal) possibilities as it is not true to life (Shand, 2003). Although, it has been argued that it would allow and encourage the individual to contemplate more about bad deeds thus by doing this, individuals might not recognise the rights of others in consideration which ought to have bottle up them without thinking about the consequences itself (Singer, 1993). This relates back to the BPS codes, as psychologists can ascertain back at the ethical guidelines when they finger themselves in a cute situation. In addition, in real life there are law s such(prenominal) as the Human Rights Act (1998) which should help individuals make morally right decisions.Deontological theories have impacted on psychological research, as they argue that we must not lie (McNaughton and Rawling, 1998). This supports the ethical considerations in the British Psychological Society which argue that we must not deceive participants about the personality of the experiment (BPS, 2000). Most psychological research deceive participants in order to find out what they are thinking. For example, self report measures use deception frequently in order to find out other factors that might affect the results. For example, one contemporary piece of research told the participants that the questionnaire was on memory and on drug abuse but they also looked at the number of mistakes they make on the questionnaire and gender differences (Rodgers et al, 2003). Another current study deceived hospital mental faculty and results showed that experts misdiagnosed healt hy patients (BBC, 2008). This suggests that deceiving participants is necessary because it can show the impact on labels and how they affect treatment given (Blass, 1991). Therefore, they were deceived in order to find out whether they were diagnosed correctly. These findings are important as it allows improvements in diagnostic criterias, therefore consequentialists point out that in practice most people do lie and we should break rules in certain circumstances (Shand, 2003). However, it has been argued that there is a risk of psychological harm to the participants and the violation of their autonomy because they are deceived about the true nature of the experiment (Bortolotti and Mameli, 2006). This relates back to a deontological idea on an individuals autonomy.Consequentialism looks at actions and deontological looks at what I ought to do however, that argument suggests that emphasis should be pose on the individual character which is a virtue ethic idea what sort of person sh ould I be (Shand, 2003). Virtue ethics could impact on psychological research for example if Reicher and Haslam (2006) or Burger (2009) involved arrant(a) individuals then the results might differ in terms of, participants might not conform to groups or they might be more determined to withdraw. Furthermore, according to Annas (2007) argues that the idea that we have global character traits or virtues is empirically shortsighted as it does not have a cross situational consistency. A further weakness of virtue ethics is that it does not provide individuals with enough counsel on what we should do but how we should be what would a virtuous person do (Doris, 1998). Additionally, as society develops, individuals might find it difficult to decide on what are the most important morals to develop or what type of actions are virtuous or not (Doris, 1998).It is argued that consequentialist theories achieve moral closure, as the individual acts rightly only when their actions maximise util ity, whereas deontologists act may be acceptable without it being the best or possibly a good option (Singer, 1993). If both theories were grouped together then it is possible to look at both the type of action and consequence produced, whether if it is right or wrong, this would allow a individual to think and behave more ethically.In conclusion, consequentialism looks at the consequences whereas deontology places importance of the right action to be complete to ethics. Consequentialism links with the BPS guideline in explaining psychological research e.g. Burger (2009) and Reicher and Haslam (2006). However, they both maximised the good by giving an insight into social roles. Yet, deontology states that participants in research need to be treated equally. Deontological theories support the BPS ethical guideline e.g. deception, the participants should not be deceived however results will be affected if the participants knew what the research was about. By concentrating on conseque nces it misses out individual factors (virtue idea). Both theories will be more ethically valid if they were merged together.