For centuries modern philosophy has been discussing the possibility of applying two models or approaches to the problem of ethics. The principles by which a person functions and makes decisions are often at the center of philosophical works. Ethical philosophy tries to understand what should lie in the causality of a person’s actions and, at the same time to reasonably explain why and what decisions need to be made. There are two main directions in which ethical, philosophical thought develops. Teleological and deontological ethics still find adherents and theorists, and the dispute between these philosophical models is ambiguous and is unlikely to end soon.
Ethics as a direction of philosophy seeks to draw a line between good and evil, good and bad. Ethical models can influence our consciousness, decision-making, and actions. Both models, deontological and teleological, strive for good and contain the idea of good at their core. The difference is that good can be achieved indirectly without adhering to a specific moral code in the teleological of the models. The word “teleology” can be translated from Greek as “the science of the end,” where the end means the desired result of an action. That is, teleologists adhere to the idea that it does not matter what means a person uses to achieve a good goal if they eventually achieve it. It turns out that it is possible to bring goodness into the world by being guided not by ethical principles but by functional ones, which bring a good task closer to fulfillment.
Deontological ethics also called a priori, is guided by a completely opposite approach. Deontology thinks within large-scale universalistic limits, considering our actions and decisions to be subject to a higher cosmic order. At the heart of this type of moral philosophy is a duty, the need to perform a certain action. Acting according to their duty, a person acts truly morally. Actions thus appear to be of higher value than consequences. The very actions of a person are evaluated in this way solely from the point of view of their compliance with the moral image dictated by duty. The consequences of these moral decisions, good or bad, are not in the purview of the deontological philosopher.
In the 20th century, the use of the term “deontological” narrowed and ceased to be a moral-debt principle. Deontology is now studied as the science of a person’s experience of a duty given by ethical values (White, 2017). However, in its original form, deontological ethics is a counterbalance to utilitarian and consequentialist moral attitudes. Thus, deontology evaluates not the result of actions and not the quality of their implementation. This type of ethics considers human motivation in making a decision or committing an act and discusses its morality. Only the intentions of a person are valuable, and only from them is it possible to understand whether a person has done well.
The teleological approach is guided by a different logic, taking the results of actions into the main field of view. This philosophical approach, considering context and cause and effect, can be applied in much more varied ways than deontological. Teleology gives great freedom in the interpretation of motivations and actions, and more importantly, it liberates a person, inviting him to change, first of all, the surrounding world and not the spiritual one.
Teleology can be perceived as a more utilitarian science as opposed to abstract deontology fixed on universal principles. The teleological approach interprets events on a more appropriate scale, human and not cosmic-divine. On the other hand, this may be its liberating danger. Many areas of teleological thought can be quite utilitarian and applied, even cynical from the standpoint of the need to achieve the goal at all costs.
The teleological direction of philosophy, as one that has a large number of alternatives, in general, requires the maximum positive result from the actions of each person. The pursuit of the best possible consequences in philosophy is called consequentialism, which has several internal directions (Benlahcene et al., 2018). Ethical egoism declares that a person should be guided by what is good only for them personally; therefore, actions in the name of only oneself can be called truly ethical. Utilitarianism puts hedonism and the pleasure principle as the goal of a person’s aspiration, where all decisions are measured by the amount of pleasure a person receives. Actual utilitarians believe that any human action is built into an individual context where there are no clear rules. Rule utilitarians believe that human decisions should be adjusted to the general legal field.
These two types of philosophy are especially clearly felt in their categorical difference when viewed in the context of practical examples. For a deontologist, for example, killing a person is unthinkable, as it is in the Christian commandment or in the fundamental idea of natural law. If the life of a deontologist or their family depended on the murder of a person, a true adherent of this philosophy would prefer to perish if only not to act outside their moral paradigm. A teleologist would have a better chance of salvation since their philosophy is focused on a specific result, which implies good. In this case, one’s own self-preservation would be good; therefore, killing a mortal enemy can be considered a moral act in the paradigm of teleology.
Interestingly, both of these philosophies have their own ancient sources. The philosophy of Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, is based on teleological principles. The deontological category of morality is found in the writings of St. Augustine, one of the main church saints and a great religious philosopher (Benlahcene et al., 2018). The comparison of these two completely different philosophers is extremely interesting because of the apparent and strong connection between the deontological principle and Christian ethics. The religions of the Abrahamic branch are guided by the concepts of duty and principle, which takes precedence over context and particular situations. Despite the fact that often the thought of the Greeks turns out to be utopian, at the same time, it has a much greater dialogicity. Teleological principles put events in the perspective of purpose and result, conclusivity, and such a practical approach is valuable for the ancient Greeks as people who put common rationality above all else.
At the same time, it is very important to clearly define what exactly the concept of “good” means. Moral philosophy is an extremely serious science in which the definition of such terms is good is in constant revision and refinement. Good can be perceived as a good intention, but a practical approach is also possible, in which good is perceived from a utilitarian point of view of bringing benefits. That is, depending on the choice of the ethical frame, the very concept of goodness can also blur.
References
Benlahcene, A., Bin Zainuddin, R., Syakiran, N., & Ismail, A. (2018). A narrative review of ethics theories: Teleological & deontological approaches. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 23(7), pp. 31-38.
White, T. I. (2017). Right and wrong: A practical introduction to ethics. Wiley Blackwell.