Dr. Pope asked the question of whether the idea of the past not having an influence on consequentialist's ethical decisions bothered any one in the class. The more I read The Ethics of Teaching, the more the consequentialist view bothers me; Just like Dewey's views on morality do.
The whole thing about "treating the past as though it is morally irrelevant" (p. 61) keeps stabbing at me while reading the text. Perhaps it bothers me because in part I agree with its views in certain ways and cannot deny the fact that we act as consequentialists every day on decisions that we make. I sense a certain "What's done is done" attitude and all that matters is fixing whatever the ethical dilemma is. I see a certain conflict here and I will put for example the case of the "awesome drunken daddy" on page nine of the text: The problem (as I understand it) seems to be that Ms. Jones has lied to the father. For the consequentialist, the ethical dilemma is what to do next? and not what has been done? But what has been done (the past) has a significant moral relevancy here as the teacher has realized that she may have been wrong in not telling the truth. What does the consequentialist say when the ethical decision in hand involves possibly rectifying an act of the past? Is the past still morally irrelevant?
Furthermore, the books talks about due process (p. 21). But what is the point of due process in the consequentialist view if "treating the past as though it is morally irrelevant does not allow us to think about how to remedy past injustices" (p. 61) ?. The past injustice doesn't matter. Isn't an injustice a moral judgement?
I am not arguing with the text as it gives us facts and "extreme cases". I am in fact agreeing with the point that these extreme cases "illuminate the properties and the weaknesses of our moral theories" (p.65). I can't seem to find a happy medium as to where I fit in (cons. / noncons) and I have concluded thus far that it highly depends on the situation. So in essence, I haven not gotten very far in my reflection. Still, not giving importance to the past, bothers me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to agree with you that I can't seem to find my happy medium between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. There are parts of both I agree with, thinking of the repercussions of my decision along with being fair to all the students in my classroom is something I think I will struggle with.
I don't think consequentialist can completely ignore the past because they must use past experiences to project future consequences of moral decisions.
Post a Comment