Teleological, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics Compared

Introduction to Ethical Frameworks

Ethical theories can be broadly organized into three major frameworks: teleological ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. Each system offers a distinct answer to the question of how moral decisions should be made — whether by calculating outcomes, following consistent principles, or cultivating good character. Understanding how these frameworks differ, and what each contributes to moral reasoning, is essential to applied ethics in both personal and professional life.

Teleological Ethics and Consequentialism

Teleological ethics are also called consequence-based ethics. Teleological ethical systems emphasize the results of ethical decisions rather than the moral principles behind them. Utilitarianism is an excellent example of teleological ethics. The stress in utilitarianism is on doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, rather than on setting a universal precedent for all ethical actions. "It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now" (Armstrong, 2011). What is good for the greatest number of people on one day may not be the case several years later, or even tomorrow.

For example, no one would claim that firing competent employees is, as an abstract moral principle, a "good thing." However, managers are often forced to do so because of the financial constraints they face when a corporation is suffering during a recession. A utilitarian would argue that not laying anyone off would result in the company going bankrupt, so it is better to fire some workers than to eventually allow all employees and shareholders to suffer. Firing employees who are least useful and necessary to the company might be prioritized. However, a consequentialist would also argue that such a rule about whom to fire should not become fixed corporate policy, because in other circumstances it might be more beneficial to release individuals with the highest salaries, given the consequences of paying such large fees to employees who may not be worth their cost to the organization.

Making decisions based on anticipated consequences is how most individuals make choices day-to-day in the working world. Teleological ethics has the advantage of being data-driven, enabling the decision-maker to justify his or her choice with specific facts rather than abstract theory. Consequentialists argue that rigid theories can cause people to be unnecessarily inflexible and to ignore exceptions to the rule. Furthermore, some theories sound compelling in the abstract but do not function well when their principles are followed absolutely. For example, the moral principle "do not kill" sounds eminently sound. However, what about killing in self-defense, or entering a war to protect democracy? Some general questions a consequentialist might ask when making decisions include: Who does this help? Who does this hurt? How many people are affected? What will be the severity of the consequences for those who are helped and harmed by these actions?

Strengths and Criticisms of Consequentialism

One of the central problems in defining consequentialism is determining which "consequences" for which entity are under consideration. Who makes up the "greatest number" is not always clear and, critics allege, can be somewhat self-interested or, at the very least, highly subjective. One decision-maker might conclude that the best consequences are achieved for the greatest number of people by prioritizing the survival of a company over the jobs of a select few. However, massive layoffs by many companies using the same rationalization can devastate the broader economy and generate a deep recession, as unemployed people cannot buy goods and services. "Consequentialists thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically valuable — the Good. They then are in a position to assert that whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that it is morally right to make and to execute" (Alexander & Moore, 2007). Yet what constitutes "the Good" is not self-evident to all persons, the system's critics argue. Critics contend that an ethical system with so little consistency is not really a system at all. "All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden" (Alexander & Moore, 2007). Even terrible, immoral actions can be justified, provided they improve the fortunes of the majority and produce good consequences for the greatest number of people.

Furthermore, consequentialism's critics contend that it is actually a very inflexible theory in its own right — always insisting that what produces the best outcome for the greatest number is the superior choice: "There also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory" (Alexander & Moore, 2007).

Deontological Ethics: Rules and Intentions

Deontological ethics, in contrast, holds that the principle behind a decision — rather than its consequence — should determine one's action, arguing that consequences are impossible to predict reliably. According to a deontologically based ethical system, the moral actor should make decisions as if setting a precedent for all time, not simply for a particular situation. This stands in direct contrast to the consequentialist, who argues that ethical actions only have ramifications within the context of a specific situation.

A deontological ethicist would argue that it is vitally necessary for all workplaces to uphold the same standards for all employees. If some favored employees are allowed to arrive late and leave early while others are docked pay for precisely the same behavior, anger and resentment will be generated — far more than if everyone were held to a consistent standard. Another component of deontological ethics is that intention is what matters, not consequences. Even if a bad act has an unexpectedly good outcome, that does not render the original action moral. McDonald's is a large corporation that sells food widely regarded as unhealthy; the fact that it uses some of its profits to help sick children does not justify the harm its products have caused to children's health and wellbeing.

The advantage of deontological theories is that they provide clear moral guidance when the outcomes of decisions are uncertain — which they often are. Instead of futilely trying to calculate what will produce the best outcome for the greatest number, the moral actor has certain consistent laws to which he or she must adhere. The objective nature of these moral laws prevents the decision-maker from consciously or unconsciously using the ethical system to justify self-serving behavior. When making decisions, the deontological decision-maker asks: What is my intention? If the decision I am making were to become a law for all time, would it do good in similar future situations?

Conclusion: Comparing the Three Frameworks

When making decisions, the fundamental question a virtue ethicist asks is: does this promote the general welfare and the beneficence of all persons? These values, of course, can be very subjective, which is one of the criticisms of virtue ethics. Its defenders contend that it is more humane than utilitarianism, yet its morality is less unyielding than deontology. Each of the three frameworks — teleological, deontological, and virtue ethics — offers genuine insight into moral reasoning, and each carries its own limitations. A thorough understanding of all three equips the ethical decision-maker with a richer and more flexible moral toolkit.

References

Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007). Deontological ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Armstrong, W. (2011). Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Hursthouse, R. (2007). Virtue ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/