1. Almost in the Hegelian sense, the traditional teleology is a synthesis of the thesis of deontology and the antithesis of Unitarianism.
2. Deontological approaches to ethics attempt to ascertain the content of duty without considering the consequences of particular ways of acting. Generally speaking, deontologists have thought that moral principles are ascertained through some sort of logical test of consistency, as Kant maintained
3. Teleological approaches to ethics, on the other hand, morally evaluate actions by looking to their consequences — right actions being right because they tend to have good consequences, wrong actions being wrong because they tend to have bad consequences. Thus, for teleologists, evaluations of consequences as good or bad provide the premises for inferring the norms of right acting.
4. Teleological approaches to morals are now often identified with some variety of utilitarianism. Utilitarians morally assess individual actions (or sometimes policies, laws or rules of action) by their consequences, the best being those that produce the greatest proportion of good over evil.
5. The terms ‘teleology’ and deontology’ refer to the ends and the means ethical systems of thinking. Some justify immoral means to a greater ethical end. Some place an emphasis on the means to an end, recognizing that appropriate steps must be taken during the enforcement process so that fair and impartial processes remain intact.
6. Teleological methods, sometimes called consequentialist methods, are based on estimating what the likely outcomes of a given course of action will be, and then choosing the method that has the most positive consequences and the fewest negative consequences. According to these methods, those actions should be chosen which lead to more positive and fewer negative consequences, and those actions should be rejected which lead to more negative consequences and fewer positive consequences. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism is usually seen as the classical expression of consequentialist ethical thinking, and so is Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics.
Deontological, or duty-based, ethical systems, on the other hand, are those that simply claim, directly and simply, what the fundamental ethical duties are. The Ten Commandments (from Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Torah) would be examples of deontological ethical thinking. According to the Ten Commandments, these actions -- honor your father and mother, do not steal, do not commit adultery, keep holy the sabbath, etc -- are stated as simply right things to do or wrong things to do. They are said to be our clear moral duty. The Ten Commandments do not merely suggest, for example, that you look at the consequences of actions and then weigh the possible outcomes to determine if an action is right or wrong. Instead they say that some actions are just plain right and others are just plain wrong.
7. Situational Ethics was pioneered by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991). His work, Situation Ethics, founded the modern situational ethics movement. Since then, almost every publication on situational ethics has referred to the model presented in Fletcher's writings. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest, a member of the Euthanasia Educational Counsel, and an advocate for Planned Parenthood. He was a supporter of both euthanasia and abortion. Situational Ethics, according to Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law.
My fellow academician Prof. Bengt Gustavsson from School of Business, Stockholm University wrore to me on 23rd December 2011;
Thanks for your link to your blog that I have read with great interest. I certainly agree with your classification of the Indian value system from my many visits to your country and the many lectures and discussions I have had with learned Indian pundits/scholars. It provoked some thougths in me that I like to share:
The problem with deontological value systems is that, although moral, they are relative and contextually bounded. We can certainly argue that many of the values you are exemplifying in your text are universal in space but not necessarily eternal in time. For example, virtues (as Aristotle claimed are aquired, must be practiced and admired) in the Edda-days of Scandinavia (abt. 800 AD) admired where braveness, strength and boldness. Today these are not the most admired in favour of for example equality and sustainability. I would love to find a transcendental, universal and eternal virtue list but I have failed so far. Another problem is that deontological systems cannot accomodate conflicting interest very well (although historically, the Indian society has been able to manage that pretty well), for example when freedom virtues are confronted with individual integrity.
The problem with teleological systems is that although they are said to be immoral ("it's OK to lie if the consequences of my lies are good") is that they do have a moral basis in how to assess the consequences (apart from measuring them in space and time). Utilitarianism held that maximizing pleasure over pain in the action was the ultimate measuring rod, which is of course a moral postulate. It could in the same spirit be replaced by other moral values, such as the balance of service to God or mankind over the Evil and egotistically.
Another issue about these systems is empirical evidence, which is important in the academic world. The strenght of teleological systems is their alleged measurability that can lead to an "objective" ethical decision, given that we accept the moral foundations on the measuring method (e.g. pleasure/pain ratio). Given the difficulties with this system, we can argue that we do have an "evidence-based" system of ethics, which was the goal of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. However, even the deontological systems could quite easily be "evidence-based" simply by assesing the degree of achivement of the values involved. For example, if honety is such a value, we can assess that countries with small or big corruption problems have evidence in relation to that value. Of course, there are a number of problems in this approach as well, for example how do you assess the degree of "God-fearing"?
Finally, my experience from introducing teleological and deontological theories to my students is not necessarily that they are practicing them, but it forces them to think about ethical issues and realize that the world we live in is imbued by ethical considerations - I consider that as a good step towards an ethical world.
Best of luck with your blog!
Regards
Bengt
______________________________________________________
Bengt Gustavsson, Ph.D., docent
Stockholm University, School of Business
SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46 8 162190
No comments:
Post a Comment