Hey I had to write a comparative critical analysis of Teleology and Deontology. This is first draft. Let me know what you think and where I can improve. Please dont flame if you think something sucks, tell me how to improve that thing. If you think the entire thing sucks let me know how I can make it better. Just read it and let me know how I can make it an A paper for my Ethics class. Thank you for your help.



Teleology & Deontology

In the study of ethics there are two major theories,

Teleology and Deontology. Teleology is often described

as; decisions based on consequences, what is humanly

desirable, the greatest good, reduction of undesirable

pain. Deontology is often described as; decisions not

based on consequences but what is “right,” sense of

duty, obligation, responsibility, rule based, driven

by intent, absolutism. There are many theories that

can be categorized as one of the two but there are

just a few major ones that are most widely know and

accepted. In Teleology there is Egoism, Hedonism, and

Utilitarianism. And the major theories for Deontology

are Kantian Ethics or Kantianism. Each of these

theories hold their own values and truths within

society and yet each theory has a flaw. The creators

and the believers would argue against that statement

but there are always exceptions when it comes to

ethics and after further analyzing and understanding

each theory this paper will compare the two and show

how each theory is and can be apply around the word

from person to person, one society to

another(dictionary).

Teleology is derived form two Greek words “telos”

meaning “end” and “logos” meaning reasons. One of the

well know account of Teleology was given by Aristotle

when he said that we must not only consider the

actions or what is being done but also the final

result(Ethics). Teleology is concerned with

consequences, or consequentialism. The Dictionary.com

definition of consequentialism is as follows; the view

that the value of an action derives solely from the

value of its consequences. In another words that the

an action can be valued based on “something that

logically or naturally follows from that action

(dictionary).” According to Teleology when a question

arises such as “What you should or should not do?” we

must consider the consequence, the end result and that

will allow us to establish the “right” or “wrong”

thing to do. One of the approaches to Teleology is the

Egoism approach. There are two egoistic approaches.

One of them is Psychological Egoism where every human

action is motivated by self-interest; it is human

nature to act selfishly. It makes sense but then that

rules out charity or helping someone without any

benefit to you. Psychological Egoism says is that even

charity people do for their own benefit because you

fill that you have a more significant life, the desire

for public recognition, feelings of personal

satisfaction, or the hope of heavenly reward (65). The

weakness in Psychological egoism falls in the fact

that it cannot be proven that all people act selfishly

although one can assume so. Another part of Egoism is

Ethical Egoism. This came after Psychological Egoism

when it was realized that Psychological Egoism is

based on an assumption. After which Ethical Egoism

stated that it is not necessarily human nature to act

selfishly, people should act selfishly for their own

well being and for the well being of others. In

support of Ethical Egoism we can say that people will

not still because if you still others will still from

you and that is not in your best interest. Although

that might be it cannot resolve conflict of interest

for example who is to say what is best for you. Since

best interest cannot always be determined then we must

consider happiness. This calls upon Hedonism, which

says that the “right” actions are the one that bring

happiness or pleasure and the “wrong” actions are ones

that do not promote happiness and pleasure. This is an

appealing ethical theory but it has one fatal flaw. It

can be best described in the example where a woman is

raped. It might have brought pleasure to the assailant

but it certainly can not be considered the “right”

thing to do. Which brings us to the Utilitarian

approach to the Teleological Theory. It sates that the

most ethical thing to do is to maximize happiness for

the majority. It was first proposed by David Hume

(1711-1776) but was later further defined by Jeremy

Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

It is a well-excepted theory unfortunately it over

looks the happiness of a minority to better serve the

majority. There are two parts to Utilitarianism. Act

Utilitarianism, which is the original form and is the

principle of maximization of happiness, and Rule

Utilitarianism, “determines the rightness of an act by

a different method. First, the best rule of conduct is

found. This is done by finding the value of the

consequences of following a particular rule. The rule

the following of which has the best overall

consequences is the best rule (utilitaransm.com).” The

problem with Rule Utilitarianism is that it would be

practically impossible to finding the best “rule” that

fits everyone.

At this point Immanuel Kant best stated that we have

to find something that is universal in people, that is

the ability to reason. In Deontology “behavior is

driven by a sense of duty, obligation, or

responsibility to do the right thing. This can be

based on a person’s own value system or by a spiritual

conviction (Major).” Deontology defines weather action

are ethics through the means not the ends, or the

final outcome. It also relies on the Golden Rule “do

unto others as you would have them do unto you” or

“love thy neighbor as thyself,” or on intuition and

justice. Take a simple example such as lying. Using

the Utilitarian approach lying would be justified and

even ethical if it brought the most happiness. For

example you lie to a killer to save an innocent life.

What Deontology argues is that by lying you are simple

assuming that you are doing the right thing which is

bringing happiness to the victim. And a Deontologist

states that, it is too dangerous to make that

assumption hat you are actually doing the best thing

for a certain person or a group by lying to them. That

is why we must remain fixed to our values, without

making assumptions about the future. Teleology

criticizes Deontology but asking how can someone set

up a universal rule with out looking at the

consequences. From whichever prospective you look the

other sides ideas seem to be ridicules. That is why

when applying these ethical theories one must consider

all the possibilities and see which on best suits the

situation and the circumstances and the people

involved.

When looking at Teleology and Deontology you find

yourself at different sides of the spectrum. And you

often discover that no single person or society relies

on one single ethical theory. In all essence when Kant

said we have to find something universal in people,

and that is the ability to reason, he was absolutely

right. And the ability to reason allows us to make

certain moral or immoral decisions following either

Teleology or Deontology often without realizing that

we are doing so. For example religion is deontology

(lecture). Sometimes religious people who know that

their actions are “wrong” still commit a certain act

because the consequences are more appealing. There are

endless dilemmas and conflicts with in and between the

ethical theories of Teleology and Deontology. But in

essence they both define what is “wrong” and what is

“right” it is up to the individual to decide weather

to consider the consequences of an action or the

actions themselves that lead to a certain eventuality.