Difference Between Teleological and Deontological Ethics

¶ … ethics, teleology refers to consequentialist ethics, in which the morality of an action is based on its consequences rather than on the nature of the act itself. Utilitarianism is a type of teleological ethics, because utilitarianism is based on creating the maximum amount of happiness (or some other predetermined desirable outcome such as prosperity or health) for the most people possible. Ethical egoism, the view that benefitting the self justifies an action, is also a type of teleology ("Deontological and Teleological Assumptions in Normative Ethics," n.d.). Deontological ethics are opposite to teleological ethics because the consequences are less important than the nature of the act itself. According to the deontological ethical framework, an act is categorically moral or immoral. It does not matter if an act produces happiness or any other result. Deontology espouses the view that the ends do not justify the means; whereas the teleologist believes that the ends can justify the means ("Teleological Ethics," n.d.).

Whereas deontology is too rigid a viewpoint to be applied consistently, ethical teleology can also be problematic. For example, teleological ethics usually do not adequately account for the needs of minority groups. It is best to integrate both deontological ethics and teleological ethics, to reduce the overreliance on categorical absolutes but without becoming too ambiguous. For example, the law usually permits acts of self-defense that result in the harm or even death of another human being. Murder is considered absolutely wrong, but killing another person is ethically permissible when the subject's life had been in danger and it was "either me or him." Another example of how teleology can be used in some occasions is the classic story of the little boy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving mother. Stealing is categorically wrong, but so is allowing someone to die of starvation. Teleological theories can better account for ethical ambiguity, which is more realistic than the assumption that decisions can be black-and-white. Moreover, deontology has a harder time making distinctions between two competing ethical choices such as between stealing as a wrong and allowing a woman to die. Some might argue that the boy should instead find legitimate methods of feeding his mother, such as by trying to find a job. Yet this line of thinking can ignore some of the nuances in the case as well as some of the structural problems that caused his mother to be starving in the first place. Teleology allows for the creation of flexible laws and situational analyses in ways that deontology does not.

There have been many situations in which I have used one or the other of these basic ethical frameworks. I do not like lying, and sometimes I tell the truth to my own or others' detriment. This is because sometimes I think in terms of deontological ethics and am learning that categorical morality is not necessarily the best thing. It makes sense to me to judge actions based on their consequences, but I was raised in an environment in which ethics were absolute and based on religious principles. I am starting to realize that our society functions better with some utilitarianism because it is a diverse society with many different worldviews. To prevent the majority from impeding on the rights of the minority, one simply needs to create exceptions to rules.