Consequentialism and deontology are contrasting theories of philosophy that guide us in viewing acts in terms of their morality. The doctrine of consequentialism suggests we should judge the morality of actions purely on the results they produce; whereas deontology aims to judge morality based on the conduct of an individual, and morality is decided from the moral acceptance of a particular action rather than the result the decision produces. These principles of philosophy have existed for thousands of years, with many philosophers throughout history using them as a basis for their work. In the context of an ethical situation, we can thoroughly use these ideologies as instruments to determine an effective solution to prevent a harmful dilemma;
…show more content…
Breaking any law on a business scale would be avoided with deontology, especially through the eyes of Kant who said, “In order that action should be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it also must be done for the sake of the law” (Kant & Abbot, 1916, p. 6). So Rajaratnam, knowing that insider trading was taboo, because it often causes damage to others, should have simply reframed from engaging in the illegal activities regardless of the circumstances, because the law existed as a source of protection. Even if for whatever reason he thought he could do it without hurting anyone, he wouldn’t if he was following a deontological approach, simply because it is generally harmful. In order for a decision this to be effectively Kantian, he would have to do that with a pure will, and not for any anything he might get in return, such as a good feeling for following the law (Kant & Abbot, 1916, p. 7). If Rajaratnam acted out of duty, and respected the laws for what they stood for, this ethical situation could have been
Breaking any law on a business scale would be avoided with deontology, especially through the eyes of Kant who said, “In order that action should be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it also must be done for the sake of the law” (Kant & Abbot, 1916, p. 6). So Rajaratnam, knowing that insider trading was taboo, because it often causes damage to others, should have simply reframed from engaging in the illegal activities regardless of the circumstances, because the law existed as a source of protection. Even if for whatever reason he thought he could do it without hurting anyone, he wouldn’t if he was following a deontological approach, simply because it is generally harmful. In order for a decision this to be effectively Kantian, he would have to do that with a pure will, and not for any anything he might get in return, such as a good feeling for following the law (Kant & Abbot, 1916, p. 7). If Rajaratnam acted out of duty, and respected the laws for what they stood for, this ethical situation could have been