The moral obligation to one’s spouse is very important. If a person vows to
love, honor and cherish until death do them part, then this before God and all
who witness that to be true. If the actions of one or the other cause a
“rift” in the relationship then this could be the beginning of the end of a
marriage. From a consequential point of view, the person knew what he or she was
doing and also knew there would be malice results from the actions if discovered
by the spouse. I believe the wife in the River Thought Experiment saw it that
way. From a Deontology point of view, the individual was doing what he or she
did because their spouse did not meet the “moral obligation” of marriage to
them. Based on the above statement and with some great thinking, my standing on
this topic is of a consequential viewpoint. Basically, the wife knew “the job
was dangerous when she took it.” This refers to both the marriage and taking
on the extra marital affair she had to endure with the boat owner in order for
her to get across the river to see her husband. The wife has more then likely
come to the conclusion that if her husband becomes aware the affair, there will
be sever repercussions. But I can’t help but to relate back to the view of a
Deontologist for a moment. I view the wife as a consequentialist and the husband
as a Deontologist in a basic sense. The wife weighed the options that if she
wanted to see her husband again she had to do what the boat owner wanted in
order for him to give here a ride across the river. The option to have an extra
martial affair to satisfy her isn’t a factor. As mentioned earlier as to the
“consequences”, the outcome of what could happen if discovered by the
significant other. As for the husband, this is a perfect case label for a
deontologist. The husband, as any logical thinking person, should see it that
when you take the vow to “love, honor, obey and cherish until death do you
part”, that is one of the most strongest agreements one can make in their life
to themselves and to the other person. Most can agree with the idea the idea of
divorcing or at least putting the cheater through the most possible discomfort
mentally and/or physically for abandoning their “moral obligation” to the
marriage vows. The married woman loved her husband enough to give the boat owner
whatever he wanted just so that she could be with her husband. She viewed the
overall good as to get across the river be with her husband. It is known that
the consequences were weighed because when she asked the boat owner to help her,
she was not willing to agree to his counterproposal. But only have the she
thought about how much she loved and missed her husband was it that she decided
to do whatever it took to be reunited with her husband. The husband should be
more understanding and except the actions of his wife due to the circumstances
of the overall situation. Deontology can’t be a factor in my view of this
because the moral obligation was still met but because it was the actions where
not something to be proud of. The wife so that to be true and ever told her
husband what she had to do to be there with her husband, but he turned his back
on her. The husband should take in consideration that his wife made one of the
most severe sacrifice if not the most severe one possible. It should be here
where a consequential point of view takes effect. The husband should have
forgiveness in his heart for the over all good of their relationship. He should
be letting his wife know that it is ok that her actions, although were of bad
taste and against all that their marriage stood for, that she loved him enough
to do whatever it took to get to his side and also confide in him to tell him
the truth and want his forgiveness. So my standing on is his deontologist
reaction is not fair or a correct view in this case. The old lady that takes the
married woman in has a consequential standpoint. This is an old woman who is all
alone in her home with know friends or family. Since she can’t get across the
river because she’s too old and weak to swim the harsh currents, she sees the
opportunity to no longer be alone. Consequentially, she knows that if she turns
the married woman away she’ll have no one to talk to and share her roof with.
But if she allows the woman into her home, she’ll not only will she be doing a
“good deed” for herself so that she won’t be alone but also a good deed
for the married woman. This could keep her sense of “moral obligation” to
others intact. I guess it could be said, “help yourself by helping others”.
Like everyone else in the world, almost everything we do can relate to the
“double edged sword”. The old lady will get a double profit from allowing
the married woman into her house…. morally and to satisfy her need for
companionship. So on a consequential point of view, I believe the old lady sees
the overall good to not be alone anymore rather then to do a ‘good deed”.
But why not make it seem that since she’s a little old lady being nice that
she’s a morally good person and that she’s only trying to help her fellow
man. I don’t believe in the deontologist standpoint here because ever though
it can fall under the classification, she was able to capitalize on relieving
her stress of someone to communicate with in her house. To conclude my overall
stand on the Consequentialism vs. Deontology, I believe that Consequentialism is
a better principle on almost every situation. I believe this because that
everything happens for a reason and that the issues have to be approached in a
logical yet emotional charge. We should learn that when stuff happens in life
sometimes it’s going to be good and sometimes it’s going to be bad. When it
turns out to be bad and decisions have to be made, CONSEQUENTIALISM comes into
play. Making decisions on things like what’s you’re going to have for lunch
to where you want to buy your first house. When decisions have to be made,
consequences should always be included or else life will more then likely fall
around you. “Moral Obligation” is all fine and dandy but it’s not a way of
life, as we know it anymore. Everything people do they want it to be so that
they can be thought of as a good person. But it’s obvious that everything has
been thought out in a consequential mindset. The society we live in has many
prejudices and greed. We can’t do anything in our lives that is “the right
thing to do”. Plain and simple, it’s done for the over all good with
consequences weighed and a final decision rendered. Because of economy and
greed, we embrace Consequentialism and some of us don’t even know it. The
everyday decisions we make from calling in sick to deciding if we should hurry
back from lunch. I for one could take the assumption I live my life in this way.
I’m always struggling with decisions about regular life choices, weighing the
pros and cons per say. So after the putting much though and from some
experience, I take a stand on Consequentialism over Deontology for the reason I
believe that I look at everything with an open mind. By that I mean I see
everything from more then one view and try to relate to it. After being
introduced to this topic, I have a standpoint of Consequentialism and believe in
it to the highest degree.