Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the teleological, deontological and hybrid systems of ethics for use in 21st century decision making.
Emily Duffy
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the teleological, deontological and hybrid systems of ethics for use in 21st century decision making. (30 A02)
The deontological, teleological and hybrid systems of ethics have both strengths and weaknesses for use in 21st century decision making. As hybrid systems are a combination of both deontological and teleological it is arguable that the hybrid systems acquire the main strengths of the deontological and teleological, and as deontological and teleological systems are complete opposites, their strengths and weaknesses are complete contrasts to each other making it difficult to use either for 21st century decision making.
The use of the teleological system for 21st century decision making has many strengths and weaknesses, for example this system tends to be more flexible than other systems, allowing it to be easier to apply for complex situations in the 21st century. Fletcher’s 4 presumptions from Situation Ethics can be used as an example here to support this point. For example, when focussing on the presumption of pragmatism, the system is practical as it allows us to look at the situation and weigh up the action which would be most loving, the consequence of this action, and the motivation behind the action. Another presumption that supports this stength is relativism. As this system is relative to situations, it is easy to apply as it takes into account the complexities of human life and tries to base the decision of what ever will result in the most loving consequence. Another strength argued here is that the teleological system is individualistic. This then allows us to look at situations individually on a more case-by-case basis, which is more suitable when applying this system to medical issues such as whether or not to turn off life support to create space for a different patient who is more likely to survive, as it will consider the two patients, their families and situation and the cost of both their treatments, thus we are more able to come to a loving conclusion to benefit the majority. This leads to the next strength that the teleological system is most likely to benefit the majority. Situation Ethics can again be used here as an example of this, as Fletcher's theory is based on Agape love and the idea of doing good. In a 21st century medical issue such as choosing between a heart transplant or several eye improving operations, it is easy to apply this system to the situation because any action is good as long as it is loving, thus taking away the complexities of the decision and benefiting the majority in the end, as clearly the most loving decision would be to make sure the majoirty of people are benefitted. Another strength one may argue is that the system is useful for 21st century decision making, as we now consider life saving or life changing consequences more important than the act of playing God, due to secularisation in the 21st century. This allows us to be able to practice cloning on embryos, which could help an infertile couple to have children, as we no longer consider whether the action is wrong as we are playing God, and rather concern ourselves with whether the consequence will be beneficial in the end.
