Firstly we must follow a set of universal laws, that apply to everyone in every given circumstance. We must treat humans as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. By treating any person as a means to an end means that the person has not been treated as an equal moral being and therefore cannot be good as all humans are equal moral agents. Finally you must act as if you live in a kingdom of ends, in other words you must act morally despite what others are doing. You cannot base your own intentions upon the intentions of others, “I will do X because everyone else does X” as if this were the case, society would become chaotic, with no real moral code. Kant’s ethics are deontological as they follow duty and do not consider the consequence of any given action, only the action in itself. Actions are intrinsically good or bad.
Aquinas has a similar theory, that of Natural Law. Natural Law is also a Deontological Absolutist theory. Natural Law follows five primary precepts, from which all secondary precepts must be drawn. The five precepts are;
- Preservation of the innocent
- Continuation of the Species
- Education
- Worship God
- Live together peacefully
From these precepts, other answers can be drawn, such as do not murder, which leads onto; for example, do not abort an unborn child. Natural Law follows a set of given rules that cannot be changed despite what the consequences of these rules may be.
Situation Ethics is a teleological ethical theory. This means that situation ethics, put forward by Joseph Fletcher in the 20th century, is based on the outcome of any given action. Fletcher argues that Christians should follow Jesus’ theory of “Love thy Neighbour” and therefore situation ethics is based on the principle of Agape love. In any given circumstance, the consequences of all possible outcomes must be evaluated using four working principles, Pragmatism, Relativism, Positivism and Personalism and then six further fundamental principles, in order to make a moral decision that will result in the most loving outcome.
Utilitarianism is another form of teleological ethics where again the same rules do not apply in all situations, the choices are relative. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham, goes by the statement, “greatest good for the greatest number” therefore the action that produces the most pleasure for the maximum amount of people should be chosen. To help to make these moral decisions, Bentham also referred to the hedonic calculus, involving the evaluation of pain versus pleasure. These areas to be considered when making a decision are: Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Distance, Fecundity, Purity and Extent, of the pain or pleasure caused.
So far all examples of ethical theories seem to support the argument that ethics can be deontological or teleological but cannot be both. The only theory that appears to contradict this statement would be the theory of Rule Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the greatest good for the greatest number principle and is therefore teleological as it relies on outcomes of situations, therefore the word “Rule” seems to be misplaced by the side of utilitarianism, yet rule utilitarianism appears to join together deontological and teleological ethics.
Rule utilitarianism establishes rules, that when they are followed by the whole community will offer the best result. Rules should be followed by everyone even if they are not personally beneficial to an individual person as they will result in the best outcome for the whole society. The element of teleology in this theory is that it still considers the consequences of actions, yet it is partially deontological as there are given rules that apply in every situation despite the individual consequences of these rules.
Overall it appears impossible to join deontological and teleological ethics as they are opposing ideas. However, Rule utilitarianism attempts to join the two and it is debatable as to whether this is successful or not.
