Ethics on Deontological and Teleological.

This Topics taken from the syllabus guide on part E which is under the Professional values and ethics.Let me start off with the area on sub-part C which focuses on describing and distinguish between deontological and teleological/consequentialist approaches to ethics.

a) Deontological ethics.
- maintain that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its intrinsic qualities, and on the nature of its consequences. Deontological ethics typically is thought to involve two important elements: prerogatives and constraints.
Prerogatives deny that agents must always seek to perform actions with optimum consequences. Constraints place limits on what actions agents may undertake in an effort to bring about their own or the impartial good.

Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally wrong in themselves [e.g., lying, breaking a promise, punishing the innocent, murder (which is bad ;p) ]. It often finds expression in slogans such as “Duty for duty's sake.” Deontological theories are often formulated in such a way that the rightness of an action consists in its conformity to a moral rule or command, such as “Do not bear false witness.”
According to Immanuel Kant which is the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy, says that the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action.

A deontologist might argue that, nonetheless, your duty is to ensure that you do not lie. A theory which regarded the prohibition of lying as agent-neutral, however, would object that surely if one lie is bad, twenty would be much worse. Since you could minimize overall badness by allowing one lie, you ought to lie regardless of the fact that it is you who are lying.
Of the five formulations of the categorical imperative Kant developed, the two most well-known are

• Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law.

• Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means but always at the same time as and end.

• Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Some other theorists include by John Locke and John Rawls. Locke held that individual persons have rights that are part of the natural law of the world, and that actions (including the death penalty, which he advocated) can be judged as right or wrong based on whether they respect these rights. John Rawls held that individual persons have a duty to act according to the laws that they would propose if they were unaware of their present socioeconomic status.

b) Teleological/consequentialist.
-The word "teleology" is derived from the Greek word "tells" that means "ends".Actions are judged to be morally good if they achieve a good goal or outcome. Teleological ethics are utilitarian in that they seek to arrive at ethical decisions on the basis of a projected outcome that would bring about the most good for the greatest number of people. "…an act is right if and only if it or the rule under which it falls produces, will probably produce, or is intended to produce at least as a great a balance of good over evil as any available alternative" The teleological approach abandons any claim to moral certainty. An example of teleological ethics is John Stuart Mill an influential liberal thinker.- In a teleological ethic, morally good decisions are means of achieving happiness. So moral goods are instruments to achieve nonmoral goods.

Dewey (1859-1952) is essentially a teleological ethicist, but he introduces much more flexibility into the traditional teleological concepts of means and ends. In doing so, he reveals some of the complications that in my view make impossible any hedonistic calculus.
Dewey accepts the basic utilitarian model of ethics: choosing a goal and then the means to achieve it. But he rejects the idea that the goal is something fixed: pleasure or happiness. Dewey insists that pleasure is only one of many goals we seek, including health, wealth, power, learning, justice, entertainment, friendship. Further, our goals change from time to time. As our goals change, of course the means also change.

- With ever-changing goals and ever-changing means leading to a flux of incompatible impulses that somehow leads to action (perhaps an axe murder ???), it is impossible to imagine what an ethical discussion could ever be about. Dewey is right to say that in fact our goals change and that with no revelation to guide us we cannot define happiness or pleasure as an absolute the way utilitarianism does. But if he is right, his point serves as a deconstruction of teleological ethics and leaves little distance between teleological ethics and existential ethics.

Teleological theories are very much like consequentialist theories (indeed, consequentialist theories are often referred to as teleological). They are similar in that in both it is some notion of the good that is centrally important, and other ethical notions derive their meaning and/or importance from the good.
There are two main differences that distinguish a teleological theory, however. The good in a teleological theory is almost always a good of some stable feature human character, i.e., a virtue. What is important in a teleological theory is not how the world is, but what sort of person and what sort of life is most valuable.
-The second main difference with consequentialism is that the point of a teleological theory is not to produce imperatives. There is no theory of right in a teleological theory; an ethical life is not understood as one in which one fulfills one’s obligations and does not violate any constraints, but in terms of a genuinely fulfilled life. A teleological theory is aattttrraaccttiivvee rather than imperative: it provides an account of what virtues, wants, desires, and satisfactions there are in a genuinely fulfilled life. Leading an ethical life is thus the person’s own self-interest, properly understood. To be sure there will be certain actions that one ought to perform in an appropriately valuable life, but they are of secondary or derivative importance.

The Difference between Deontological and teleological are :
1) Deontological theories deal mainly with the inherent righteousness of a behavior. Teleological theories stress the amount of good or bad embodied in the consequence of the behaviors. [Hunt and Vitell, 1988].

2) The deontology school of thought focuses on the preservation of individual rights and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than on consequences. [Ferrell and Fraedrich, 1991]. Deontological views include the Golden Rule, "Act in the way you would expect others to act toward you" and also Kant's categorical imperative, 'Act in such a way that the action taken under the circumstances could be a universal law or rule of behavior."Deontologists feel that individuals have certain undeniable rights which include: freedom of conscience, freedom of consent, freedom of privacy, freedom of speech and due process. [Ferrell and Fraedrich, 1991].

Teleology focuses on the consequences of the actions or behaviors of the individual. [Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991] Moral philosophers often look at teleology as consequentialism because they assess the moral worth of a behavior by looking at its consequences. To define teleology in the business sense, egoism is used. Egoists believe they should make decisions that maximize their own self-interest, which is defined differently by each individual. According to each individual egoist, self-interest can be defined in many ways, one may want pleasure, wealth, power, fame, a good physical well-being or something else. Existing weaknesses of ethical egoism prevent one from taking a stand against even blatant business practices or resolving conflicts of egoistic interests among two individuals.

This Articles are some of the information that you required to have knowledge on, however,not all of the above words,paragraph you should know..At least you have the idea,and meaning of it, then,the rest in just understanding of the question in the exam.For me,i could not memorised bits by bits of the words above,just read and make your own understanding,unless desperated which is the last resort :)

Next articles still under the ethics topics but on the Relativism and absolutism.