Deontological Ethics
Deontological is a philosophical point of view that focuses on ethics in terms of the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves rather than the soundness or unsoundness of the actions' outcomes or the individual's disposition. To a deontologist, however, regardless of whether an action was good or bad, the action itself is what determines whether it was good or bad.
Deontology is a branch of modern logic that examines people's decisions and, conversely, what they should do (deontic hypotheses). The moral hypothesis of Immanuel Kant places a strong emphasis on the relationship between obligation and the ethical quality of human activities. Deontology frequently sets concerns about standards against functional outcomes contending that correct moves ought to be made paying little heed to their results.
Virtuous Side and Adherence to Principles
Hutson believes that the virtuous side of the equation lies in the figured out sentiments. Accordingly, a deontological approach takes into account aspects of the actions themselves questioning their adherences to certain tenets. Hutson, however, believes that it is not easy to adhere strictly to such principles and people can be nudged in one way or another for some reasons.
The Accusations Against Chris Collins
In an article written by Thomas and Kaplan they argue that Chris Collins the Representative of the New York may have contravened the federal rule by leaking nonpublic intelligence about a firm which he served as a board. The article further claims that Mr. Collins might have also violated House ethics rules by meeting with the National Institute of Health and requesting for their help in designing a clinical company. The house ethics committing confirmed that it would look into the circumstances behind the accusations and expand on the issue in light with determining if he committed a crime as accused. The congressional ethics office also argued that Mr. Price (an official in the company) refuse to cooperate with its investigations. In the end, Mr. Collins was found to have some connections with the company as he was trying to help the organization improve which is against the ethical codes.
Consequences and Traditional Moral Ethic
From the above case, the best traditions moral ethic would be looking at the consequences of the actions taken by the congressman. There is no objective moral but it is important to encourage moral reasoning by looking at issues from different angles and avoiding letting emotions govern the reasoning behind the actions taken. Thus, the main tenet of the traditional theory would be a consequence of the action as proposed by the utilitarian theory. In this case, the concern would be if the clinic facility stands to gain or to lose from the violation of the ethics by the congressman.
Majority Reasoning and Ethical Tradition
As earlier noted, a group of people as part of traditional ethical response would consider how the company stands to gain or risk. This is based on the social psychology that governs majority reasoning such as in a case where the death of a single person would benefit thousands of others, then it would be better to kill that person. Accordingly, if majority stands to gain from the exposure of the information by the congressman Mr. Collins, then he would be judged to have acted morally right. However, in an instance where the clinic stands to lose then he would have violated the ethical code of conduct.
Ethical Tradition and Right Actions
Moreover, the ethical required by the ethical traditions have to do with what is right to wrong as at that moment and particularly depending on the consequences of the actions. In this light, if the person acted in support of the organization then his actions were purely based on the goodwill of the people. This further supports the deontology theory that requires a person to strictly do what is right. In the above case, therefore, the proponents of the ethical tradition would require Mr. Collins to refrain from outlining information of an organization to the public just because he sat on the board. The firm has tried to stay out of public light and for a good reason which suggests that the company is not interested in its affairs getting to the public. Accordingly, it is wrong for him to expose the functionalities of the company to the outside world against its wishes. This case study, shows the different perspectives that traditional morals have with the deontology as a philosophical point of view.
Conclusion
Conclusively, philosophy defines how scholars view issues surrounding people. It tries to explain some of the right ways of looking at issues and addressing them. While traditional perspective is shaped by emotions and the general perspective of what the majority view as being right. From this point of view, deontology conflicts sharply with traditional perspective in that the two reasoning apply different angle in solving issues. In the case of Mr. Collins applying deontology results in a different point of view regarding the ethical concerns as it appears when viewing the same accusation from the lens of traditional context.
Bibliographies
Hutson, Matthew. 2013. "Opinion | How Firm Are Our Principles?". Nytimes.Com. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/how-firm-are-our-principles.html.
Kaplan Sheila, Katie Thomas. 2017. "House Ethics Office Says New York Congressman May Have Violated Rules". Nytimes.Com. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/health/collins-ethics-inquiry.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FEthics&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
