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