Comparing Deontological And Teleological Theories
In any given ethical conundrum there are two key factors to consider, the action taken to deal with the issue and the results of those actions. Ethical theories usually take a position that holds one of these two ideas. In doing this ethical theories can fall into two different classifications, those being Teleological or Deontological. However the nature of these categories is conflict with one another, leaving no room for theories that don’t fall under these blanket terms and ignores the pitfalls of both ways of thinking.
The word teleological comes from the greek word telos (τέλος), meaning goal or end. Deontological however comes from the greek word Deon (δέον), meaning duty. A more simplified definition though would encompass the idea that teleological ethics is concerned with the result of an action whereas deontological ethics focuses on the action in question. The problem with using these simplified categories in defining and ethical theory or law is that it ignores some of the subtle and minuet qualities of those theories and laws. Some of the more well teleological and deontological theories include;Utilitarianism, Situation ethics, Egoism, Natural Moral Law, Kantian Ethics, and Divine Command Theory. The former three of those six are teleologically based while the latter three are deontologically, the most widely used of those six being Utilitarianism and Natural Moral Law.
When referring to teleological schools of thought it is hard to ignore Utilitarianism. The creator of the theory, english philosopher Jeremy Bentham, defines Utilitarianism as;
“The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” (Bentham, 1768, Collected Works, p. 142)
This principle is useful in determining the most appropriate course of action in a given scenario where one would need to find an ethical solution. Bentham even constructed a way to calculate a desired Utilitarian outcome using the Hedonic Calculus. The calculus takes into account an actions Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity, Extent, and Type. While the Hedonic Calculus doesn’t leave any factors to chance an immediate problem rears its head with it, the calculus is far too complex for practical application. No one in any situation that requires them to come to an ethical conclusion could ever take into account all the necessary factors to produce and accurate solution. John Stuart Mill, a Scottish philosopher and follower of Jeremy Bentham, sought to simplify Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism. But aside from the complexity of the Hedonic Calculus many of Utilitarianism's problems cited by its critics are to do with how Utilitarianism can be used. By its nature, Utilitarianism can and has been used to justify atrocities such as the Holocaust and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This criticism feeds through to teleological ethics, where being too concerned with an actions outcome negates the effects of an action itself. But in that vein it goes both ways, one can be concerned with an action and negate the outcome that action.
This leads onto deontological thinking, a normative ethical way of thinking which focuses on what someone ought to do in any given ethical situation. Natural Moral Law falls in with this way of thinking. Developed by Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar of the Catholic church and philosopher, Natural Moral Law draws from ancient Greek philosophy, such as the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
“The natural is that which everywhere is equally valid, and depends not upon being or not being received… that which is natural is unchangeable, and has the same power everywhere, just as fire burns both here and in Persia.” (Aristotle, 340 BCE, Book V, Chapter 7)
Aquinas described Natural Moral Law as an ethical code existing within the purpose of nature created by God. Basically ethical decisions are guided by human nature and our desire to live ‘good’ life and to prevent yourself or another from doing so is immoral. This is where the reasoning behind Christan belief against abortion and euthinasia can be attributed to. However a major problem with this theory is the fact that many of its concepts a null to an atheist for example and don’t serve the purposes of being used to solve ethical issues, it also doesn't take into account that what a ‘good’ life to one person may not be to another.
When comparing teleological and deontological schools of thought, one must take into account that neither can the be all and end all of ethical ideas. On the subject of when one should utilize a theory from these two categories, it depends on perspective. Wherever a theories benefits can be used most effectively should be the right option.
