Deontological Ethics in Vocational Dilemmas

Deontological Ethics in Vocational Dilemmas

The Deontological Ethical Approach

In principle, the deontological ethical approach requires that our actions be dictated by objective reference to formal rules instead of by reference to the motivation of our choices as in virtue ethics or the specific consequences of those choices as in consequentialism or utilitarianism (Rosenstand, 2008). In many respects, the deontological approach often produces undesirable results because it is not flexible enough to adjust to situations where formal rules that may be generally valid and beneficial produce result that are distinctly immoral.

For example, during the Nazi era in Germany or the Slavery era in the southern American states, the formal laws established by the respective governments prohibited assisting or harboring Jews or escaped slaves, even if complying with the law resulted in the unjustified killing or inhumane torture of morally innocent individuals. Other moral systems recognize the value and importance of adhering to formal laws and rules in general, while allowing for exceptions where compliance produces an immoral result (Rosenstand, 2008).

Therefore, deontological ethical systems produce moral results only in so far as the rules to which they require adherence are themselves inherently moral, or inherently capable of adjusting to situations in a flexible manner. Unfortunately, formal rules are tremendously susceptible to being unjustifiable depending on their source and the circumstances in which they are established. Since most rules and laws are necessarily formulated in absolute terms rather than in terms that are adjustable, deontological ethical systems frequently produce poor outcomes (Rosenstand, 2008).

Applying the Deontological Approach to the Vocational Case Study

The case study presumably presents two specific ordinary rules of conduct: (1) that it is morally wrong to lie, and (2) that it is impermissible to disclose confidential company information or policies to the employee making the inquiry. This exposes another weakness of the deontological approach: it provides no guidance for determining which of two contradictory rules must be respected. If the supervisor respects the company rule prohibiting disclosing the information to the employee, he must violate the general moral rule prohibiting lying. Conversely, if the supervisor respects the general moral rule about lying, he must violate the company policy about non-disclosure.

In this particular scenario, the supervisor would have little help from deontological principles to decide which rule to follow and which rule to violate. Therefore, his only option might be to respond that he is simply not at liberty to respond to the question, although most of the time, that response would already suggest to the employee that the supervisor is aware that layoffs in the department are anticipated.