Menu

Identity belief and contrast between deontological and teleological ethical systems

0 Comment

Identity, belief and contrast between deontological and teleological ethical systems Deontological ethics or deontology is a theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one’s duties and the rights of others. Deontology posits the existence of a priori moral obligations, further suggesting that people ought to live by a set of defined principles that do not change merely as a result of a change in circumstances or in other words, situational ethics. One of the most important implications of deontology is that praiseworthy goals can never justify immoral actions, in contrast to doctrines that claim the ends justify the means. Deontology is directly in opposition to consequentially, an ethical theory in which the ends can justify the means because decisions are judged primarily in terms of their consequences.
Teleology, on the other hand is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations. Teleology traditionally is contrasted with philosophical naturalism, which views nature as lacking design or purpose. Two classic examples of these opposing views are found in Aristotle and Lucretius, the former as a supporter of teleology and the latter as a supporter of what is now called philosophical naturalism.
Apart from these two ideals there are the seven major ethical systems that are regarded as the most ethical of the ethical systems. These are Relativism, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, Commandments of God, The Children’s Ethics, Darwinian Ethics and Rousseau and Nietzsche’s idea of will and ideal.
Relativism is the ethic of no ethics. It is considered good in educational circles to make studies, especially of controversial topics, value-free. Whereas, Kant’s Categorical Imperative says that to behave ethically, you must act so as to be happy for your actions to be examples of general laws. Similarly, Utilitarianism represents all ethical theories where the goal is maximization of some measure of goodness. These are outcome-oriented ethics where goodness is measured by its results. Commandments of God are ethical theories that accept some higher power as their source. It is self-evident that a major weakness of these theories is disagreement about just what it is that God has commanded. Contrary to this the children’s ethics is the ethical theory we teach our little children and hope they will grow out of universal benevolence. Darwinian Ethics is one of its kind, it tells us why we have ethical thoughts in the first place, in other words an explanatory theory. Lastly, the ‘ideal’ of the ‘will’ or of ‘transcending good and evil’ of Rousseau and Nietzsche are two typical figures attracted to this line of thought. It is hard to discuss this topic impartially because these ideas are really not thoughts at all, but instead feelings (savage, primitiveness) disguised as thought.
Thus, Relativism, Utilitarianism and Darwinian Ethics show the signs of Teleology while Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Commandments of God, The Children’s Ethics, and Rousseau and Nietzsche’s idea of will and ideal appears to be different and curious examples of Deontological ethics.
Among all these systems of ethics the most interesting and the more logical one appears to be the ethics of Relativism. This system evokes a thought process that is not barred by any structural mappings or doctrines. It appears to project a sense of ingenuousness that helps one to be free in terms of thought process. Quite logically, the most preferable ethical system among the most widely accepted systems is the system of Relativism.
References:
Wright, Robert. 1994. The Moral Animal: why we are the way we are. Little, Brown amp. Co.
Finnis, J. 1983. Fundamentals of Ethics. Georgetown University Press.