Deontological perspective
This
approach to ethics takes the view that the moral worthiness of an action has
nothing to do with the outcome. The moral value is intrinsic to an action
(Townsend and Luck, 2013, pp.34-67). In this perspective, it is only enough
that people operate with rules that everyone else would want to apply as
universal rules. The rule should not depend on the desires of the moral agent.
This aspect of deontological ethics is called the categorical imperative. In
essence, applying this ethical perspective entails developing a rule which one
believes should be capable of acceptance as universal.
When
applied to the actions of A, a likely rule would be that university professors
who apply research grants are free to use those funds in whatever manner they
wish. They can even divert the funds to uses that are purely unrelated to the
research. It is true that A thought that he was free to use the funds as he
wished but very few people would agree to a universal rule that left
researchers with the freedom to misuse research grants. This is even more so
given how it is increasingly becoming difficult to finance research projects. Grant
proposals are always specific on where the funds should be applied. Reviewers
of grant proposals would be highly unlikely to approve of a proposal if the
recipients were to use them for a totally different purpose for which they were
granted. Consequently, the actions were unethical if viewed from a
deontological perspective. It is also unlikely that A could have used this
ethical perspective when applying the research grants.
Utilitarian perspective
Unlike
deontology, this approach looks to the consequences of an action to determine
its moral worthiness (Israel and Hay, 2006, pp.13-17). Utilitarianism promotes
actions that would result into the maximization of benefits and minimization of
suffering. Benefit or suffering in this sense is with respect to a community to
an individual. Thus, evaluating the use of research money can only be seen in
the context of the society in which that money was spent.
A’s
application of the research funds to his personal use did bring him some
utility. Perhaps the wider society had a net benefit in having a top researcher
like A undergo reflexology treatment. A possible challenge to this position
would be that the society lost by not benefiting from the output of the
identified research areas where the money was supposed to be applied. Such an
argument can only stand on the assumption that A actually had a genuine
research topic to apply the funds to. It could as well be the case that he
obtained the funds through deceit.
Given that A’s actions had a bearing on the
reputation of his university, one can suppose that he was careful to conceal
his actions so as not to ruin that reputation. In other words, he was mindful
of the negative consequences of his actions being discovered. This is typical
of utilitarian approach to issues.
Impact of ruling
Australia
is a common law country where courts and other tribunals are keen to follow
decisions from prior cases (Townsend and Luck, 2013, p.73). Since the
commission deliberates on many other cases like this, the short term impact
would see employers paying compensation to their dismissed employees on the
ground that the decision to dismiss was too harsh. This may not continue in the
long run as employers are likely to lobby for legislative amendments that would
give them more power to dismiss such employees without incurring unnecessary
expenses.
References
Israel,M., and Hay,I.,
2006.Research Ethics for Social
Scientists.London: SAGE.
Townsend, R. and Luck,
M., 2012.Applied Paramedic Law and
Ethics: Australia and New Zealand.Chatswood,
NSW: Churchill Livingstone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment