Deontological vs. Teleological Ethical Systems
Deontological ethical systems are concerned with the nature of an action that is being judged. If the action is considered to be inherently good, even if the action has bad consequences than it can be defined as good. Deontological ethical systems include ethical formalism, religion, and natural law (Pollock, 2004).
Ethical formalism is based on motive and intent of the person who performs the action (Pollock, 2004). For example, a friend stops by another friend’s apartment to visit and finds him struggling to breathe, and was grasping at his chest. He dials 911 and then having remembered a commercial for Bayer aspirin that mentioned taking an aspirin during a heart attack can help, she goes into her purse and gets an aspirin to give to her friend while they are awaiting the arrival of rescue crews. After giving him the aspirin, his symptoms worsen and by the time paramedics arrive, the man was dead. After autopsy, information was revealed that the man died from an allergic reaction to acedimenaphin, not because of the heart attack.
Even though the man died due to the actions of the woman, ethical formalism believes that because her intention was to give him the medication to help him, her intentions were good, even though the result was bad.
However, ethical formalism also believes that what is considered to be wrong is wrong no matter what. There is no justification for Murder, in the eyes of ethical formalism, and believes that no good can come from a person taking another persons life intentionally (Pollock, 2006). For example, recently Saddam Hussein, who has been the President of Iraq for the past two decades, was put to death for his crimes against humanity (Santora, Glanz, & Tavernise, 2006).Even though most people believe that his death sentence was justified, ethical formulation says that there is no justification for murder, even if it is for the betterment of society. (Pollock, 2004).
Another form of the deontological ethical system is religion. Religion is the most widely used source of individual ethics. Religion has us believe that what is morally good is what is defined by God. All religions believe that their supreme being is all knowing so there is no further examination needed and even though God has given us guidelines to follow the only question that is left is God’s will. Even though there is a continued struggle with in religions, to figure out God’s will, they all have the same general concepts of good and evil, and what is right or wrong (Pollock, 2004).
The Ten Commandments are what guides us to live a good life and to achieve greater good among ourselves and serve as a guideline on which to live. In our quests for divinity, if something arises, the act will be judged mostly on the intentions of the actor and even though it may have grave consequences, if the intention of the act was good, than God will see it as being morally good. (Pollock, 2004).
For example, if a person decided to give to the poor out of the kindness of their heart it is deemed as being a good act but, if the person does it with the intentions of gaining notoriety or anything else, than God says this is wrong.
Natural law believes that “what is good is that which is natural” (Pollock). If the action is to defend themselves in efforts to save their own lives, than this is considered to be a natural reaction and therefore seen as a good action. Natural law can be considered a deontological ethical system because it is much like religion in that the acts are judged based on the situation (Pollock, 2004).
For instance, a person breaks into a home and takes a family hostage. After a few hours of watching his family being victimized, the father decided to take action and fight back. During the struggle with the assailant, the gun goes off mortally wounds the attacker. Natural law would say that the father’s act was considered to be good based on the fact that he was doing what was natural to him; defending his family.
The last deontological ethical system is egoism. Egoism believes that what ever it takes to achieve personal happiness is considered moral. It gives the belief that what ever it takes for us to gain personal happiness and whatever benefits themselves is moral (Pollock, 2004).
For example, a student attends Western International University to obtain their degree, but they can find no time to study or do their work so they employ someone else who does not attend the University, to do their work for them. Under the egoism ethical system, this person would consider the choice to be moral based on the fact that they will gain their degree, even though it is considered cheating. But, because it made them happy, it is considered to be moral.
The Teleological ethical system is the opposite of the deontological system. The teleological ethical system judges the consequences of the act rather than the act itself. It believes that if the action results in what can be considered as a good consequence, than it must be good and that the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place (Pollock, 2004). Among the teleological ethical systems are utilitarianism, ethics of virtue, and ethics of care.
Utilitarianism is the view that “what is good is determined by the consequences of the action”. If it can be shown that an action benefits the greater amount, than it is good because it outweighs the small amount of harm that the action has caused (Pollock, 2004).
For example, a family and their two dogs go out on a boat ride and ended up getting stranded on an island with no food. Even though they love their pets, they chose to kill them and eat them to provide food for their children and used their fur to keep warm. Even though many people find their pets to be like their children, and animal organizations see no reason for killing animals, they did what they had to do to survive, which under the utilitarianism was a moral choice.
Another form of teleological ethical systems is the Ethics of virtues. Instead of judging the act or consequences, this ethical system looks at the person who is committing the act. It believes that in order for something to be considered a good act than the person must be a good person with virtues such as compassion, honesty, humility, courage, and devotion. If a person holds such virtues, they are good people and will do good (Pollock, 2004).
For instance, a doctor in the emergency room gets a visit from a friend who is there for the intentions of getting the doctor to write a prescription for pain medications. However, the doctor finds nothing wrong with the friend and gives him samples of Tylenol instead. The thought never entered his mind that his friend was a drug seeker and depended on their friendship to get the medication. Instead, the doctor applied his medical expertise to the situation and the act was considered to be good because he has always done good, and wasn’t tempted to do otherwise.
The last teleological system is virtue of care which is based on the needs of individuals who are sick, injured, or incapable to make decisions on their own. The decisions are based on the immediate needs of individuals being cared for and doesn’t concern itself with a person’s individual right’s (Pollock, 2004).
If a person was injured severely in an automobile accident and was put on life support, they would not be able to make decisions for themselves. The next of kin is responsible for making a decision on whether to care for the person or to take them off life support. The next of kin then decides that they are going to take the person off life support because they feel that they would not want to live like that and that their quality of life would be diminished if they chose to keep the person on life support. This ethical dilemma would be a justifiable moral choice, according to the ethics of care.
The teleological ethical system is a system that matches my views the most. The teleological system seems to be the most humane system in that there is no one set of rules to abide by. It is a system that is judged by individual circumstances rather than just the actor themselves. People are all generally good and try and follow God’s law, but when it all comes down to it, there is no universal guideline on what to do when life presents us with moral decisions. However, with the teleological system, it offers us the chance to understand that life does happen and that we can not judge on the basis of one universal set of rules.
Reference:
- Pollock, J.M. (2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed.). Belmont, CA Thomson/Wadsworth
