Hi all, first post! I've just taken a brief ethics course and have subsequently fallen into the rabbit hole. I hope to get a lot out of participation in this forum.
I'm trying to understand deontology vs. consequentialism vs. virtue ethics and I'm trying to figure out whether I'm understanding this right.
I engage a contractor to do a job and he does the job and everything is fine. Deontology, consequetionalism and virtue ethics say that whether I engage the contractor or not is morally neutral.
Now, same situation as above... except I find out that the contractor (a) cheats on his taxes, or (b) doesn't pay his workers, or (c) uses stolen goods in his work. Now that I know that his work is not above board, does that change the ethics of choosing to engage him? Does the extent to which he's not above board effect the decision? So where I'm stuck is that it seems wrong to engage him... but why?
What if: (d) he says that he's installing a new door, but in fact he's found an as-new door on the side of the road and passes it off as new. Deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics should still deem this decision neutral, right?
Would appreciate if any of you could provide some clarity!... Though, I have a feeling it may just pull me further into the philosophical black hole.
Deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics don't deem anything morally good or immoral. They are categories of moral and ethical codes that describe what aspects the various differing disagreeing codes in that category consider when determines the morality of something such as action/behavior/intent/consequence/virtue. Two moral codes in the same category might disagree about whether a specific action/behavior/intent/consequence/virtue is immoral, morally good, or neutral.
I love it when Scott explains these things for us in plain English.