While the varieties of ethical theories are many, one basic distinction between traditional ethical types is that between duty-based ethics and results-oriented or consequentialist ethics. Duty-based ethics are often called deontological and consequentialist ethics are often labeled as utilitarian. A third variety is virtue-based ethics, which concern themselves with developing character more so than with particular conduct in particular situations. We shall mostly concentrate on the distinction between the first two.
In this article you will learn a simplistic way to understand and distinguish between deontological (duty-based) ethics and teleological (utilitarian/results-based/consequentialist) ethics.
Duty-based Ethics
Duty-based ethics are labeled deontological by philosophers. Some explanation is in order. The etymology of deontology reveals that deon- comes from the Greek word for that which is binding, obligatory or necessary. Generally speaking, de- means “of” and ont- pertains to “being” so we are ultimately speaking about something being necessary based upon “the way things are.” “Logy” comes from the Greek logos and pertains to both speech and theory–hence our word logic. For the Ancient Greeks, speech and knowledge were intimately bound, hence for instance the Bible inherits this with “In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God.
So then deontological pertains to theory of binding duty or obligation. Such theories are also called a priori in that they are based upon knowledge gained prior to experience. No concrete lived-through experience is required in order to derive these duties deductively from reason (or logos).
Examples of Deontological Ethics – Immanuel Kant, etc.
Eighteenth Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is perhaps the most famous ethicist of deontology. He developed what’s known as the categorical imperative (named such because it categorically imputes duty across situational variables). The categorical imperative admits to several different formulations or ways of stating it, the first of which is “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. The second formulation yields “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means”. The third formulation is “. . . every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” If you’re detecting some similarities to the Golden Rule, that’s no accident. These are all duties, moral obligations, and they cut across variables such as time, culture, and gender.
I find the second formulation to be the easiest to grasp and apply to contemporary life in that we can often spot areas in which we’re treating persons as means (the honest, if unsavory way of putting this is “using” them) rather than as ends, and thus defying Kant’s categorical imperative. We may sum up the deontological by saying that the ends do not justify the means.
Other examples of deontological ethics include the Golden Rule–do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Any absolute prohibition or entreaty pretty much counts as deontological (though not necessarily as Kantian), such as the Ten Commandments and, in a derivative and applied way, the Bill of Rights contained in the U.S. Constitution. Other legal examples include for instance tort law in which individuals and businesses have various duties pertaining to care and precaution.
Results-oriented Ethics
Results-oriented ethics are generally called “teleological” by philosophers, and again, with a word nearly as uncommon as deontological outside of academic circles, some explanation is called for. Teleology comes from the Greek “telos,” which means “end” or “goal,” and, as we’ve already discussed, “-logy” as pertains to speech and theory. So then teleology is theory about ends, results. Thus teleological ethics are also called consequentialist because they deal in consequences. We might take some liberties and characterize teleological ethics, at least in their applied sense, as being a posteriori (or after experience, unlike a priori). One invokes prior experiences of self or others (observational learning in the latter case) with “how things have worked out” in the past in order to predict the likely outcome of present actions. Note again that the end or consequences of an action takes precedence over duty.
Examples of Teleological/Consequentialist Ethics – Bentham, Mill, etc.
A prime example of consequentialist ethics comes from Nineteenth Century British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and their development of what’s called utilitarianism. J.S. Mill’s father, James Mill was an accomplished political theorist in his own right, and was friends with Jeremy Bentham. The two comprise one of the best tutorial teams of all-time, with their star pupil having been the precocious J.S. Mill, whom, if I recall, was versed in Greek by age 4. Utilitarianism is guided by what’s known as the “greatest happiness principle,” in which what we’re looking to do is to act in such a manner as to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain calculated in the sum of all individuals. We’re to try to calculate how much overall pleasure or happiness will be the consequence (and how much pain/unhappiness avoided) of an action, and that is our guide to ethics. This variety of consequentialist ethics is referred to as utilitarian because acts are judged based upon their utility or usefulness as tools to producing happy results. The utilitarian reference to increasing pleasure and decreasing pain is also often called “philosophical hedonism”.
One major distinction between Bentham and J.S. Mill is that Mill introduces the notion of qualitative distinctions to pleasures. Bentham had famously been misquoted by Mill that “quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”. Bentham actually said “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry” (push-pin was a popular game at the time). Either way, Bentham’s notion of happiness seems to be a little bit more thoroughly egalitarian and hedonistic in the vulgar sense than is Mill’s semi-aristocratic idea that there are qualitative differences in pleasures–higher quality pleasures and lower quality pleasures.
The Distinction Between Deontological and Teleological Ethics
As we have seen, deontological ethics are based upon absolute duties that take precedence over results. Ends alone do not justify means. With teleological ethics, however, ends do justify means, so much so in fact that means or actions are ethically neutral in an of themselves and only receive value or “disvalue” vicariously based upon the results they tend to produce. A deontological ethics might rule out murder entirely whereas a teleological ethics might praise one murder (for instance the killing of a despot) for its bringing happiness to a people and reducing their pains, yet condemn another murder for its bringing more grief than joy.
