Some Thoughts Regarding 4/8

This discussion made me start reflecting on how I and others look at things. I feel that people often default to thinking of things from a consequentialist point of view. Perhaps this is because the result is a central focus for many. And despite our comments regarding the egoist approach and its opinion that “self-interest is a prerequisite to self-respect and respect for others,” I find that I see this approach expressed a lot by people both in and out of Grinnell.

I also got to thinking about the duty-based approach; for example, I got to thinking about how it can be applied outside an actual set of rules. In my “Theories of Culture” course, I took last semester, we spoke about the idea of “social fact,” which was postulated by Émile Durkheim. While this may on the one hand seem not to fall under the duty-based approach, I believe that some of these cultural norms can so heavily influence the individual without a directly written declaration, and many of these can be unethical.

Regarding “Don’t Get Distracted, I find it interesting that the author of, Caleb Thompson, stayed at his job despite the experience they refer to in the story. I felt that the story’s ending led me to believe that Thompson had quit their job.

At the end of class, Professor Rodrigues brought up the question of whether or not Thompson’s ability to tell this story is somewhat dampened by the fact that they completed their job at the DOD. While I acknowledge that, as Professor Rodrigues mentioned in class, first jobs can be tough and one may do things they didn’t expect to, I wonder if the author had included a bit about finishing their posting; perhaps, then, readers might not feel so disillusioned.

One thought on “Some Thoughts Regarding 4/8

  1. Charles Carr

    I found the duty-based approach to be complicated and somewhat problematic. On one hand, making decisions based on a consistent code of ethics is in some ways admirable, and it is comforting that decisions divorced from results can be considered moral. However, using a duty-based approach can lead to negative results. Ignorance towards results is a harmful approach, and one I see on a broad level in society, especially American politics. In many ways, strict constructionists and people who take that approach to policy embody this philosophy. They govern in a way seeking to be extremely consistent with the Constitution, regardless of outcome. However, in reading Supreme Court cases, the programs or rules that are attacked by this group for being inconsistent with their reading of the Constitution are also very valuable to specific, often marginalized groups. In this way, this governing group makes decisions based on a limited reading of code of law and can safely ignore results they don’t care about, however negative. This, and the duty-based approach, is entirely too convenient for ignoring societal ills just because outcomes are not a competent of morality.

Leave a Reply