deontological ethics

The term deontological comes from greek word deon meaning duty. This approach
to ethical decisions holds that some moral principles are binding, regardless of
consequences. This approach is duty based, action based approach, also called
humanitarian approach. Deontologists do not look at how much good might be caused
by an action. They look at the action itself, deciding whether it is prohibited or made
obligatory by one of their rules. Usually, the rules are expressed negatively: do not lie, do
not steal, and do not harm the innocent. In a few cases, the rules are expressed
positively: keep your promises; treat all persons as beings with rights, tell the truth.
These rules are often called constraints. A constraint is like a set of handcuffs it
stops you from doing something, even if you want to do it. about lying or killing that is
simply wrong, regardless of what good you could accomplish by lying or stealing or
killing in some particular case. When they are challenged on this, they have some very
compelling answers:
My duty is to make sure that I do not do evil. If I kill to save a life, by killing I am
causing evil. My first duty is always to ensure that I am good in myself. Killing or lying
or stealing would make me bad in myself.
If everyone followed my rules, then no-one would be killing, lying, or stealing, and evil
would disappear in the world.
Deontologists say that the right is the only consideration. We cannot worry about what
good may come into the world. Right and good are two different things, and we must
worry about the first.
Deontologists dont have a lot of rules. In some cases, this gives them a fair amount of
freedom. Since their rules forbid or require only certain actions, other actions are
available to them. A deontologist would never say, It is good to preserve the rain
forest. After all, preserving the rain forest is all about consequences and that is not
what a deontologist looks at. So the deontologist might be able to chop away and not feel
guilty. Deontologists might say, respect the world God gave us and respecting the
world might require protecting the rain forest but that would not be why the
deontologists did so. They would be acting to do what was a duty, and whether or not

that saved the rain forest or cost a half a million poor people their jobs in those forests
would not be their main motive

In other cases, however, even one or two rules can make life very difficult. Immanuel
Kant is one of the worlds great deontological thinkers. He is an absolutist. He
established what are called the categorical imperatives. These are rules he feels all
people must follow, and while there are only a few, imagine trying to follow them all the
time. Non-absolutist deontologists, such as W. D. Ross hold that the consequences of an
action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do.
Example: Accounts Payable Clerk
Consider an accounts payable clerk. This person is responsible for reviewing invoices and
expense reports, ensuring that they conform to policy and then issuing prompt payment. If
company policy required original receipts to justify the items on the expense report, and the
employee submitted photocopies only, a clerk with a duty-based ethic may reject the report
and require the originals even though other clerks may simply process the report without
question. The clerk acts in this manner because he believes he has a duty to follow the full
and literal policy that the employer had imposed, irrespective of whether the need for
originals instead of copies made any difference.

Example: Customer Service Manager

The manager of a retail store with a posted merchandise return policy may choose to honor
the policy or to make exceptions, depending on the circumstances of a particular return.
Managers with a strong duty-based ethic will typically hold closely to the literal text of the
policy and make fewer exceptions, because she views upholding her employer's policy as
her job. Consequentialists -- that is, people who favor evaluating the outcome of an act
rather than the act itself -- may be more willing to grant exceptions to keep customers
happy.

Teleological ethics
The word teleology comes from Greek telos which means end or purpose. This is an
ethics approach where actions are judged morally based upon their consequences. It is
counter approach to the deontological ethics. One example of teleological ethics is
utilitarianism. It states those actions right that produces the greatest number of
happiness to the greatest number of people. For example: torturing someone to find the
location of a ticking time bomb. While the torture for its own sake would be wrong,
because it is done for the greatest good and to save lives, it can be understood to be the

ethical thing to do. Another example of teleological approach is virtue ethics. Virtue
ethics does indeed seek to maximize happiness it sees happiness in a much more
personal way. This ethical theory argues the goal in the development of the human
mind, spirit and body to the fullest
I'm afraid that the two answers above are both mistaken. I want to explain Kant's deontology rather than
the unfortunate hangers-on who came later and seemingly never understood Kant's view.
First, you are right, as Kant explains time-and-again; consequences can never be part of the decision that
something is right or wrong. Why? Kant argues that responsibility for being moral is possible only if we
know with absolute certainty was is right and what is wrong. Consequences never give us that certainty.
So, consequences never have any part in any moral judgment.
Second, deontology focuses on the logic of a moral judgment. Here you go. Suppose we allowed lying, so
that instead of telling people they ought not to lie, we tell them that lying is fine. So we all decide to follow
the moral judgment that "Lying is right." Now, when you tell me something, I consider that you might be
lying, so I cannot EVER trust what you say. Because of that conclusion, I realize that you cannot even lie
to me! That is, the rule that allows lying makes lying impossible. That is the logic that supports the moral
judgment that lying is never right.
Anyone who says that deontologists are concerned with fashion or with self-righteousness might consider
a career in mathematics and stay out of ethics. The point of the deontological theory is the argument used
to prove the right or wrong of some action. Unless one can produce a valid argumentlike the one I used
for lyingabout fashion, we can consider his ramblings as pure bovine spoor (BS).
So you want an example. Suppose I am hiding Jews in the attic when along comes a Nazi officer looking
for Jews. He comes to my door and asks whether I am hiding Jews. I am confronted with the following
decision: Does morality allow me to lie in this case? I reflect on the argument I showed you above and I
realize that morality does not allow me to lie in this or any other case. So, the choice to lie is wrong and
the choice to not lie is right.
No doubt you and others are aghast at this conclusion, thinking Oh what a terrible conclusion.
Deontology must be a wrong theory if it allows that conclusion. You have decided to reject the logical
argument proving that lying is wrong to favor your personal feelings that lying is not always wrong. So lets
look at your theory of ethics.
You have decided that ethics must be based on personal feelings, assuming the conclusions above. So
one day I tell you that I have decided to take my gun and murder a family of Jews living down the street,
maybe they are black people or old white men. (I am speaking of today, not in the 1930s or 40s.) You see,

my personal feelings command me to murder them. You have no argument to prevent me from doing what
I set out to do because you think morality is all personal feelings. If I must do what is morally right, and if it
is morally right for me to murder these people because thats what my personal feelings are, then I should
murder them.
Moreover, you might focus on the consequences of my refusing to lie. But suppose that one of the
children in this family of Jews I am hiding would have grown up to become a mass murderer if he
survives. Suppose that the Nazi officer is secretly opposed to the murder of Jews. Whenever someone
tells him they are hiding Jews, he quietly walks away. Whenever someone tells him they are not hiding
Jews, he barges in and inspects their house. So, my lie could cause him to inspect my house, find the
Jews and then be forced by his superiors to have them carted off to the camps.
You see, morality cannot be based on personal feelings or on consequences, and that is why I am a
deontologist.
Difference between Deontological and Teleological Ethics
Deontological approaches to decision making look at the action and decide whether it is right or wrong.
Teleological approaches, however, look at the consequences of an action to see if it is at least as good as
any available alternative.
Deontological ethics take account of the motives and intentions of the individual engaging in the act,
whereas teleological theories are far more relative, considering outcomes and purposes. For instance
Kant, an absolute deontological thinker, would argue that it is always wrong to lie, no matter what the
consequence may be. However, a utilitarian (a teleological form of ethics) such as Jeremy Bentham would
argue that the outcome that produced the most happiness is the most favourable outcome. This could
mean, for instance, that it would be acceptable in the eyes of Bentham to lie to save someones life if this
produced maximum utility for society - hence for a teleological form of decision making the emphasis is
clearly on consequences, leading to the name consequentialist being used interchangeably with
teleological ethics. Situation ethics, which has the absolute rule of agape, would equally focus on the
consequences of an action. Fletcher argued that for any decision that has to be made, the most loving
outcome for it must be selected. Once again, it becomes apparent that teleological/consequentialist forms
of ethics are very much concerned with the consequences of an action, whereas deontological forms are
concerned with the morality of the act itself.
Deontological ethics are absolute, whilst teleological ethics are far less so. Deontological theories such as
Kantian ethics or situation ethics all have absolute rules that must be followed. For instance, Natural law
theory (partially deontological) has the five primary precepts (Such as preservation of innocent life, or
maintaining an ordered society), which are absolute rules and therefore cannot be broken under any
circumstances. Here, for the example of euthanasia, this would not be allowed in any circumstances as it
would violate the precept preservation of innocent life. However, Aquinas later states that we should try
to fulfil our God-given purpose, which is teleological as it is interested in our design/end - euthanasia

however would probably still be frowned upon as due to the sanctity of life thesis only God has the right to
give/take life. Teleological forms of ethics, however, do generally not have absolute rules. For instance,
utilitarianism does not have any such rules - so instead of using rules to decide outcomes the hedonic
calculus is used by Bentham to weight up things such as the quantity or duration of happiness as a result
of the action. Utilitarianism, with regard to euthanasia, would potentially allow utilitarianism. Singer, a
preference utilitarian, would argue that if the person wanted to die, they should be allowed to do so. There
would be no rules there to stop them, so euthanasia would be permissible. Both teleological and
deontological decision making methods are massively in contrast to a subjective ethical relativism, where
the outcome of any decision is by far at the discretion of the individual him or her, where decision making
is very much an aesthetic judgement.