A634.2.4.RB_TAYLORHEATHER

Consequentialism vs. Deontology

Is man inherently evil?  Do we have the capacity of creating subjective arguments without compromising the overall strength of our moral fortitude? These questions are at the heart of philosophical theories of consequentialism and deontology.

When aligning my personal beliefs with each theoretical foundation, I find myself leaning more toward a deontological worldview than that of a consequentialist. This is in part due to my personal realization that my ability to debate and rationalize behavior could be of significant consequence if left unchecked.  

When looking at consequentialism, it is difficult for me to understand how one could create a standard ethical code for practical use based on this theory.  For example, if the National Association of Social Workers were to revise their Code of Ethics through a consequentialist lens, they may state that a social worker is given the right to use lethal force if it is believed that children may be faced with an imminent threat of death.  Being in the social work field for many years, and staring down the barrel of a gun pointed at me while wearing my "Sally Sunshine" social worker badge and high heels, I understand how much evil is going on in the world around us.  I also understand that it is important not to repay evil with evil.

That leads me to a Deontological perspective.  Deontology is non-consequentialist in nature.  According to May (2014), "One way for a moral principle to be non-consequentialist is for it to treat the motivation behind an action, not merely its consequences, as intrinsically relevant"(p. 746). Motive matters just as much as the action itself.  Deontology attempts to create a rule-based, unerring method of ethical standards.  As prudish as it may sound, I tend to agree with Kant's notion that "people ought to be moral, period-no matter what their desires or interests or beliefs" (LaFollette, 2007, p. 34).  

The issue that remains, however, is how one can expect the same ethical and moral conduct across cultures and across significant bio-psycho-social factors.  An example would be the life of Phineas Gage, railroad worker and famous traumatic brain injury survivor. Prior to an unfortunate incident with a tamping iron that penetrated Gage's frontal lobe, the individual was seen as a moral and just man.  He acted civilly and behaved in a manner that would not cause harm to others.  After the unexpected tragedy, Gage turned into a significantly different man.  According to Gage's friends, "The balance between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities seemed gone" (Twomey, 2010). In instances such as this, would one be able to provide judgment for immoral and unjust behavior when it is the result of a physiological trauma impacting reasoning and sound mind?  To what extent does one afford compassion?  When do such disabling conditions warrant punishment?

I have yet to find a school of ethical thought or an ethical theory which can account for these unfortunate circumstances.  Morals, judgment and ethics within both consequentialism and deontology have an underlying notion that individuals are capable of operating with a sound mind. While Kant may argue we are all fundamentally evil, he has this claim as a foundational statement to uphold his imperatives: 

"Every rational being does exist as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will as it pleases. In all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, a human being must always be viewed at the same times as an end" (LaFollette, 2007, p. 36).

Are those with medical conditions impairing judgment no longer rational beings? Are those under the use of substances not to be held to the same standard? What of those who have cognitive delays which impair executive functioning?  While ethics may try to create a standard code of moral conduct, how do you standardize a world that is becoming increasingly diverse? For now, both consequentialism and deontology fall short.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

• May, J. (2014). Moral judgment and deontology: Empirical developments: Moral judgment & rules.Philosophy Compass,9(11), 745-755. doi:10.1111/phc3.12172  

Twomey, S. (2010). Phineas Gage: Neurosciences Most Famous Patient. Smithsonian. Retrieved October 30, 2016 from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/phineas-gage-neurosciences-most-famous-patient-11390067/#hegDoPxLfUkfATL9.99

A634.1.5.RB_TaylorHeather

The Train Dilemma: When No Choice Is a Good One

My daughter is never, ever allowed to go near train tracks for the rest of her life after reading the train dilemma.  Now that we've established that and this is a purely hypothetical discussion, I would be extremely troubled throwing any of the switches and quite honestly, I do not believe I would throw the switches at all. 

Upon first reading through the scenarios of having five children on one track and one child on the next track, I thought about switching the train to the track with only one child.  I could not push an elderly man in front of the train to save the lives of the children as that would be an act of intentional murder.  I could ask the man if he would sacrifice himself if there were enough time, but likely that would not be possible.  If the lone child on the track was my own child, I could not bring myself to throw the switch. 

So in answer to the philosophical question: I probably would chose option D.  If an elderly man could stop a train by being thrown in front of it, then it would be logical that I too could stop a train by jumping in front of it.  Now comes the ethical dilemma of sacrifice or suicide? That is decided by the lens of the individual and the intent of the person.  If I were trying to jump in front of the train to escape life by taking my own, that would be suicide.  If I were to jump in front of the train to save the lives of others, that would be sacrifice.  This is similar to the officer that rushes into the line of fire.  In order to protect others, they willingly sacrifice their own life.  

Now let us turn the dilemma into a medical scenario.  I am a doctor.  I have a patient who just became infected with a deadly and highly contagious virus.  If he lives, he will be patient-zero of an unprecedented epidemic.  I do not have the option of quarantine as that will only infect more individuals in transporting the patient to quarantine.  Do I provide a lethal injection? Do I provide the patient with the medicine and allow the patient to administer their own lethal injection?  Do I deny any treatment and let the patient die inhumanely?  I believe I would explain the situation to the patient and allow the patient to make the decision for themselves.

In all of these scenarios, my choice revolves around a very difficult and rather unclear intermixing of personal convictions, humility, humanity and sacrifice for the greater good.  Socrates (n.d.) stated, "A system of morality based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."  If you have sound ethics and sound morals, it should not matter if the situation is personal or non-personal.  Emotion should not alter the decision.  According to Fan and Yang (2012), their results from a similar trolley/train dilemma study demonstrated a significant difference in responses based on the personal and non-personal variations of the problem, denoting an emotional response to ethical problems.

Whether it be the five children, the one child, the elderly man or my own child, I would choose sacrificing my own life over doing any action or inaction to cause harm to any other life.  It is not that I do not value my own life.  It has everything to do with responsibility and putting the greater good above all else.  Probably not the answer you were looking for, but thankfully I am already aware that I don't have all the answers.

Socrates (n.d.) BrainyQuote: Socrates.  Retrieved October 23, 2016 from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/socrates_2.html

Fan, Y., Yang, L. (2012). Ethics. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 356-365. 

A641.9.3.RB_TAYLORHEATHER

Heather,

Congratulations on making it to this point of your academic career.  You have not given up and you have great support through your family, professors, and friends.  You are nearing graduation and have a great future ahead of you.  In order to reach your goals you need to remain focused.  According to Goleman (2014), that requires you to engage in some delayed gratification and cognitive control.  So lets focus on some specific goals to reach your personal vision of becoming author, educator and resonant leader, Heather Taylor, Ph.D.

Goal #1- Complete Master of Science in Leadership degree program
Milestone 1- Completion of Required Coursework
Action Step- October: MSLD634 
Action Step- November: MSLD634
Milestone 2- Develop understanding of Public Policy
Action Step- January: MBAA648
Action Step- Implement coursework in practice during remainder of Ms. Wheelchair FL 2016 reign.
Milestone 3- Graduation
Action Step- Complete Capstone Course
Action Step- Apply for Graduation
Goal Accountability: Randall Taylor (Spouse) and Glenna Dollar (Sister-in-law)

Goal #2- Obtain Doctorate of Philosophy
Milestone 1- Determine field of study
Action Step- Research Graduate Programs
Action Step- Connect with Graduate Directors at Universities
Milestone 2- Apply for Admission at selected University
Action Step- Obtain Reference Letters
Action Step- Complete Application
Milestone 3- Complete Coursework and Graduate
Action Step- Maintain communication with Academic Advisor
Action Step- Pace coursework to allow for balance
Goal Accountability: Randall Taylor (Spouse) and Glenna Dollar (Sister-in-law)

Goal #3- Publish Book
Milestone 1- Create Outline of Book
Action Step- Determine Audience
Action Step- Brainstorm Chapters
Milestone 2- Write Book
Action Step- Create rough draft
Action Step- Create edited version
Milestone 3- Publish book
Action Step- Contact publishing companies
Action Step- Sign contract with publisher
Goal Accountability: Dayna Gonzales (Friend and avid reader)

While it may be tempting to move out of sequence or order with these steps, your ability to reach larger audiences would be enhanced with your doctorate.  Depending on the audience, your writings may be used in coursework to teach future generations.  In reaching these goals, maintain the larger vision that you want to reach as many people as possible with a message of hope and provide increased awareness of the need for social service improvement.  It may be best to start a journal as a chronicle of your experiences that can be used in your book.  Whether it be helping a Domestic Violence shelter, a Substance Abuse/Mental Health Clinic, making strides for Child Abuse Prevention or speaking out about Sexual Assault, your first hand experience is crucial in helping others understand the importance of your message.  You have a powerful story and it needs to be shared.  In the process of getting your Ph.D. you will have many opportunities to publish in major journals.  Learn from those experiences and develop your writing skills.  Remember to pace yourself and maintain that balance.  Remember to not be self-sacrificing but to put your health first, practicing mindfulness and creating an internal sense of peace to allow you to maintain focus.  Together we will achieve your dreams!

Boyatzis, R., McKee, A. (2005). Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting with Others through Mindfulness, Hope and Compassion. Boston: MA. Harvard Business Review Press. 

Goleman, D. (2014). What Predicts Success?  It's Not Your IQ. Daniel Goleman.  Retrieved October 9, 2016 from http://www.danielgoleman.info/daniel-goleman-what-predicts-success-its-not-your-iq/

A641.8.3.RB_TAYLORHEATHER

No one is perfect, including me.  As I have grown, I have come to realize that my greatest strengths are also indications of my greatest weaknesses.  As the balance tips to one side, it loses the weight on the opposite end of the spectrum.  For example, a distinct strength that people often find in performance reviews and coaching sessions is my ability to overcome obstacles, maintain focus and the tenacity/determination displayed during a project task.  

However, this also means that I have a weakness of being ultra-focused at times, needing to become reclusive and shut out others from the world around me.  A real life instance this week was in trying to regain my health.  In order to do this, I needed to solely focus on the basic functions of my body and not add anything to the mix for the majority of the week.  

My doctor was concerned about my blood work and she said that she wanted me to start a new routine, referring to a nutritionist and then ordering a whole new set of tests.  She wanted me to make sure the second I began feeling thirsty, that I made sure to drink many fluids.  The first indication of needing to use the restroom was not to be ignored.  She wanted me to make sure I put no extra stress on my body.  If my heart started to have palpitations or if I felt I was moving into a tachycardic state, she wanted me to be completely still and try to regulate my breathing.  After several days of what appeared to be me doing nothing on the exterior (i.e. letting laundry pile up, dishes left in sink, etc.), I began to notice some improvement in my health.  The issue is I need to retrain my psyche to allow myself to not achieve a task immediately.  If I am trying to do the dishes and I get as far as washing one fork when I get an urge to go to the restroom or need to lay down, I must stop and come back to it later.  That is a huge difference in my personal balance routines of the past.  

Much like an Obsessive-Compulsive eater that only eats one item on their plate at a time, hyper-focusing on that food and then moving on to the next, I have been able to multi-task, with most successful task completion happening in the wee-hours in the morning when there are no other distractions and I have the ability to knock out the items on my to-do list.  Now I know that whether it is 2am or 2pm, and whether it means that I may not meet deadlines, I must not put the added stress on my body and must prioritize my physical needs first.

When completing the exercise in the McKee, Boyatzis & Johnson (2008) text, I arrived at the following responses to the personal balance form questions:

• Distinct Strengths:Optimistic outlook, tenacity, good communicative ability, servant leadership style
• Potential Strengths: Deepening relationships with others.  I spend very little time growing in my relationships with others or investing in those relationships outside of family.  These are so important and I should begin making time to invest in others.
• Enduring Dispositions: Smile often, desire to "never give up", pray often, light-hearted
• Liabilities: Inability to "throttle back" at times and re-center, neglecting self for purpose of achievement
• Weaknesses I want to change: I want to begin spending more time investing in my health and my relationships with others, understanding that this foundation will help me grow in my future successes
• Enduring Dispositions that Get in the Way: A behavior I would like to change is my limited eye contact when I speak with others.  Due to difficulty with cognition, I often have to either close my eyes or look into space to retrieve the words when vocalizing speech. However, this is not conducive to proper interpersonal communication and I need to begin practicing maintaining eye contact while speaking, training my brain to recall words during eye-contact.

According to Bergland (2014), "Looking someone directly in the eyes during a conversation is the key to making any social, professional, or romantic connection.  We rely on eye contact to communicate and connect with one another on a conscious and unconscious level."  While I am a wonderful listener and will maintain eye-contact during receptive communication, I need to understand and prioritize the importance of making this weakness into a strength through a balanced approach.  Goman (2014) asserts that eye contact is much like the Goldilocks and the three bears.  You need to find just the right method and delivery of affixing your gaze in order to ensure the other individual is comfortable and not feeling stared down or dismissed.  I will likely practice on my ever-willing husband and together we will likely improve our shared communication skills in the process.  I love how our courses have been helping our relationship grow and then how our improved relationship helps us become more successful in our interactions with others.  

Bergland, C. (2014). The Neuroscience of Making Eye Contact.  Psychology Today. Retrieved October 2, 2016 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201403/the-neuroscience-making-eye-contact

Goman, C. (2014). Fascinating Facts About Eye Contact. Forbes. Retrieved October 2, 2016 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2014/08/21/facinating-facts-about-eye-contact/#5d3fb060518b

McKee, A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Johnston, F. (2008). Becoming a resonant leader: Develop your     emotional intelligence, renew your relationships, sustain your effectiveness. Boston, MA:      Harvard Business School Pub.