Which kind of ethical theory, deontologist or consequentialist, works better for arguing that it is wrong to drive one's car on the left side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the right? Explain.

  On one hand you have deontologists who follow the rules that are given no matter what. They are all for duty and absolute rules to be followed if they lead to good or even ill consequences in particular cases. They agree that logic or reason determines rules of ethical behavior, that actions are intrinsically good because they follow from logic. On the other hand consequentialists judge acts to be right if the consequences are good and the act as being wrong if the consequences are bad. For this argument a deontologists would say that if it is illegal in that country to drive on the left side of the road where people normally drive on the right side, then it is wrong and should not be done. Also if everyone in that country is clearly driving on the right side then it only makes complete sense to drive on the right side as well to ensure safety. A consequentialist would argue that if driving on the wrong side of the road will lead to bad consequences such as an accident then don’t do it, but if driving on the wrong side of the road does not lead to any bad consequences then it is ok. I myself consider on both sides of the fence I think I would consider myself to be on both sides of the fence because I do believe in following the rules but not so much of going by everything in the book because that doesn’t make it always right. Then again as a consequentialist I do believe that if it doesn’t hurt any body then there isn’t anything wrong with it.

References

Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.