Ethics exist to determine whether actions are right or wrong, moral or immoral, justifiable or unjustifiable. Teleological and deontological theories are the two ethical theories that help in establishing the correctness of actions based on the motivation and the consequences of the said actions. The two ethical theories can be used to analyze Crachit’s case to find out if his motivation is justified. Moreover, the two theories can be used to determine whether the consequences of his actions have a utility or not.
Facts
Bob Crachit is a clerk at the Scrooge & Marley Company, which is based in London, Louisiana. Crachit works for long hours, which denies him a chance to spend quality time with his family. Crachit spends most of his free time with his son Tiny Tim who suffers from an illness that forces him to use a crutch to walk. Crachit’s salary is overstretched as it meets most of the family’s needs in addition to funding Tim’s’ treatment. On realizing that his salary would not be enough to cater for all of these needs, Crachit made false statements on his federal tax returns. As a result, the government charged Crachit with multiple counts of tax evasion to which Crachit pleaded guilty. In his defense, Crachit explained that he lied since he needed the extra money to fund his son’s treatment without which Tim would die. Moreover, he told the court that he had learned his lesson and if he was to be imprisoned then his son would surely die. Nonetheless, the District Court went ahead to sentence Crachit to 24 months to deter would-be tax evaders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Issue
The issue is whether Cratchit’s sentence was ethical under the consequences-based approach and the principles-based approach.
Rule
The consequence-based approach establishes that an action is considered morally right if it produces desirable consequences. In essence, the decision, which produces the best possible balance of both the bad and the good consequences for the involved parties, is considered justified. The consequences-based approach asserts that if a certain decision, act or rule produces good consequences then that act decision or rule is correct (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). One of the main teleological theories is utilitarianism, which establishes that a decision is correct if it benefits the majority of the stakeholders. On the other hand, an action is considered morally wrong if it produces negative outcomes for the majority. As it is an action may be deemed wrong by others but the same action may end up working for the greater good making it a moral decision.
The consequence-based approach to ethics outlines that what is most important in any action are the consequences without giving much thought to the means used to obtain results. The use of consequence-based ethical approach allows individuals to think about the general welfare of other stakeholders. As it is, consequence-based ethical approach is considered as a standard measure that removes self-interests in judging the value of an action. In essence, consequence-based forces the individuals undertaking action to think about those other individuals who will be affected by the decision (Mosser, 2013). As a result, the action then is supposed to produce the greatest good for the stakeholders. In this case, the correctness of an action is determined by its net benefits as opposed to its net costs associated with undertaking the particular action. The benefits of the action can be social and include happiness, knowledge, pleasure, health, wellness among others. On the other hand, the costs can include pain, sickness, break us among others.
Principle-based ethics approach focuses on the fact that each individual possesses the moral right to determine what is moral or not. These moral rights can be viewed as those rights which impose prohibitions and requirements on individuals to enable them to choose freely whether to pursue certain interests or activities. Principle-based ethics rides on several principles in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. For one the principle of universalism asserts that an individual reason for doing something should correspond to the reason that everyone else would act in given the situation (Misselbrook, 2013). The principle of reversibility asserts that the motivation or reason for engaging in an action must be a reason that is applicable to all individuals. In essence, other individuals would agree that the individual took the right course of action in the given situation. The other principle outlines that individuals should treat people as an end to themselves rather than the means of achieving the desired outcomes. This approach is effective as it forces individuals to ask themselves which rights they have in the pursuit of promoting individual welfare.
Analysis
Consequence-based approach
Consequence-based approach to ethics establishes that an action is considered morally right if it produces desirable consequences. Crachit action of making false statements on his federal income tax returns translating to tax evasion led to him getting a 24 months’ imprisonment. However, this not to be the case considering that his action produced beneficial consequences to his son and the family. Crachit hoped that the extra money would be used to cater for his son’s treatment without which his son would die. Moreover, Crachit hoped to use the remaining money to take his family to on a trip to the quaint coastal town of Bath, Alabama something that he had not done in a long time. The consequence-based approach furthered establishes that an action is considered right if it benefits the majority of the stakeholders. In the case of Crachit, the main stakeholders are his family, himself, his employer and the general public. The extra money that Crachit got after tax evasion was to benefit his family, himself and the employer. In essence, his son was to get his treatment while his family was to get a family trip with Crachit feeling satisfied for meeting his family need. His employer would benefit from Crachit actions considering that he went ahead to appeal for a lighter judgment.
The consequence-based approach insists that an individual must take into consideration the net benefits and costs of the action in determining its rightness. As it is, the benefits should exceed the cost if the action is to be considered ethical. In the case of Crachit, his actions set to bring several benefits to himself, his family, his employer, and the public. For one his son will have improved health outcomes, which will, in turn, bring happiness and satisfaction to Crachit, his family, employer, and the public. Furthermore, his family will be happy once they go on the trip, which has been delayed for lack of money. The time they will spend together during the trip will bring the family together. On the other hand, Crachit will be rejuvenated and he will be in a better position to work for his employer knowing that his family needs have been met. Owing to these reasons, one would feel that sentencing Crachit to 24 months is unfair since his actions produce more benefits than harm.
Principle-based approach to ethics
Principle-based approach to ethics establishes that individuals have moral rights to determine what is moral or not. In this case, one believes that Crachit acted morally by feeling that he had to evade taxation to meet his family needs. This fact is supported by Crachit defense where he claimed that tax evasion does not have a mandatory minimum, so a probationary sentence for tax evasion would be legal. The principle-based approach further outlines that moral rights impose prohibitions and requirements on individuals to enable them to choose freely whether to pursue certain interests or activities. In the case of Crachit, he knew of the existing prohibitions but still went ahead to lie about his taxes all with a good reason. In essence, these prohibitions are not meant to deter action but rather act as guidelines on which an individual bases his actions.
The principle-based approach rides on the principle of universalism, which asserts that an action is morally right if it is applicable to all. In this case, Crachit did what any other person would have done given the situation. No one would watch a child die due to lack of treatment. As it is, Crachit did not do a new thing considering that most individuals lie about their taxes to meet several obligations. The principle-based approach outlines that individuals should treat other people as ends in themselves as opposed to means to an end. Crachit knew that he had to do something to meet his desire of seeing his son healthy and his family happy. In essence, he viewed the result first and then came up with means to meet the end. From here, Crachit used justifiable means to achieve his ends and acted within the legal confines considering that tax evasion does not have a mandatory minimum regarding minimum threshold. Following this realization, one would feel that Crachit does not deserve the sentence as he was acting within his moral rights to do what is deemed good and justifiable.
Conclusion
The 24 months sentence placed on Crachit is not justifiable under both the consequence-based and principles-based approaches. Crachit acted morally as he was only trying to make things right for his family something another person would do given the situation.
References
Misselbrook, D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and Deontology. The British Journal of General Practice , 63(609), 211.
Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and Social Responsibility , (2nd ed.) [Electronic version].
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (2016). Deontological Ethics . Retrieved on 20 February 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
