Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
An ethical paradox occurs when a person is faced with a decision-making problem between two
or multiple ambiguous moral imperatives. In the very core of an ethical paradox resides a conflict
that presents itself out of the situation and the person deciding cannot see a clear path that does not
end in the transgression of any of the parties involved in the situation. The fundamental goal of
ethical studies and the theories presented by philosophers over the centuries is tried to remedy such
paradoxical situations as much as possible. However, arguments can be made that the conflicting
theoretical perspectives that these philosophers have presented actually made the life of a
According to Elsevier (2009), the study of ethics is perceived as a division of philosophy that tend
to include the teachings of many other fields of study like psychology, history, anthropology,
economics, politics, theology and sociology. Having said that, ethics sets itself distinct from these
disciplines as the very notion of ethics is not based upon of factual knowledge like the other
branches of studies, rather, it concentrates on determining the very nature of various normative
concepts and to apply those principles to solve different moral problems arising in various
situation.
In the given case study, the character in question, while faced by an ethical paradox adopted the
deontological theory which solely concentrates on the intent and the motive of the action without
considering the consequences of that action. This kind of issues are not uncommon in the society
at all and very often undesirable consequences follow that are unintended. As the moral principle
proposed by Immanuel Kent in his deontological theory dictates that intent should be the driving
force for every action it often brings out such unintended consequences which the person did not
Here, in the situation in question, the simple intent was to help a sick person in desperate need.
However, there might be some long term effect of this action. For example, if an exception for
Carol is made then the corporate policy is rendered pointless. Such an exception is not fair to the
other employees. There is a reason that a policy like this was put in place. Even though the case
does not mention it but the obvious reason is that the organization has designed such a policy on
the basis of the resources they have. As the organization does not have unlimited resources, it was
not possible for them to treat everyone like the way Carol was to be treated if an exception was
made. So if the organization violates its own policy and allows an exception for Carol, then in
future such facilities should be given to everyone else. So basically they will have to change their
Making an exception in Carol’s case is not fair to the company either. The organization made its
policies based on the resources they have. It is not that they promised something and declining to
follow through. The clause was put into the employment contract and Carol and other employees
agreed to it when they agreed to accept the employment offer. This kind of exception puts the
organization is a very difficult situation, both financially and otherwise. If they decline to make an
exception, it won’t look good and it will be an extremely unpopular decision that will directly harm
the company’s reputation both within and outside the company. Also, if they make an exception
all the other employees will expect a similar treatment which the organization cannot afford.
The third long term effect could involve the persons who are allowing the exception to happen or
making it happen. A company, corporation or organization of this size includes multiple decision
makers and not all of them may not agree with the ‘exception’ idea and they might hold those
people responsible if any unintended consequences take place. This could have a huge impact on
these peoples’ personal and professional lives, and the lives of their families as well.
The current population of the world is 7.53 billion. This is not just a mere representation of the
number of human beings inhabiting the earth. This number also signifies the bazillion interests,
rights, and conflicts that surround us. It is extremely difficult and complicated to build a framework
that can preserve and protect each and every one of these interests and rights while resolving all
the conflicts. However, as an effort to make the best of the circumstance and to establish an order
in society, laws are made. Although this ‘far from perfect’ process diminishes a great deal of those
rights and interests and sometimes flares up conflicts, these are believed to be the only way to
Now in such an environment, the very notion of “Good” cannot be an absolute concept. Where
deontological theory time to time tries to defy the idea of obeying the structure (like the case
presented here) and act spontaneously by accepting the relativity of goodness, the societal structure
constantly tries to discourage spontaneity. But at the same time what the legal or societal
framework does is, take as much of the “Good” possible and put them under the “duty” column. It
is true that this process often comes at a cost and as has been mentioned earlier it diminishes a
portion of the “goodness”, that the deontological “duty” is so keen to uphold, for the sake of
Now if the society starts to allow actions solely based on their face value while not following any
particular structure the world will surely slip into chaos. This is a widely recognized limitation of
deontological theory. The most conspicuous problem with this theory is the apparent irrationality
of our having permissions that makes society ethically worse (Hutchinson, 2012). A deontologist
would require his or her own model of rationality that is non-consequentialist and which is a
framework of rationality. Until that point, deontology will always remain paradoxical and
implausible. Even in the given case, we can see that granting an exception by disobeying the
structure and by following the deontological theory exposes the rights and interests of many
consequential thinking.
Deontology has derived from “doen” and “logos”, which means “duty” and “science”. The
archetypes of deontological theory emphasize on the relationship that exists between duties or
obligations and morality of actions. The theoretical framework of deontology judges an action on
the basis of the characteristics of that action itself rather than its outcome (Yarbro, 2011).
Therefore, according to this theory, an action will be considered morally good if the intent or the
characteristic of that action is good regardless of the result of that action. Additionally,
deontological ethics dictates that no matter the consequences to the wellbeing of society, some
actions must be regarded as morally obligatory. The reflection of this philosophy is often visible
in phrases like “Let justice be done through the heavens fall” or “Virtue is its own reward”.
Consequential philosophy, however, dictates that the fundamental point of reference of ethics is
precipice value that a particular action is bringing out. According to this theory, an action is judged
the very first question that comes to mind is “What is the outcome?”. This question frequently
arises in countless ethical paradoxical situations. The question here is based on which outcome the
action should be judged. Here the action is “making an exception to the policy” and outcomes are
at one side the wellbeing of a very sick person and on the other hand, as has been pointed out
previously, the interest of the “organization”, “other employees” and “the people trying to make
the exception happens”. Now if judged by solely on the wellbeing of Carol, the action qualifies as
good by any standard. However, if the long term impacts are taking under consideration; although
deontological theory considers this as a good action, the consequential philosophy might not. Be
that as it may, both of these theories are considered as highly essential in the study of ethics, and
finally, it can be said that there is no one right theory or no right answers when comes to ethical
paradox.
References
Elsevier/Pergamon Flexible Learning. (2009). Managing legal and ethical principles. Amsterdam.
Hutchinson, B. (2012). G.E. Moore's ethical theory. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University
Press.
Yarbro, C., Wujcik, D., & Gobel, B. (2011). Cancer nursing. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.