From the religion you have studied, discuss the view that religious ethics must be either deontological or teleological, but cannot be both

Authors Avatar

Rosa Lenders

From the religion you have studied, discuss the view that religious ethics must be either deontological or teleological, but cannot be both.

To answer this question, this essay will firstly give a definition and brief explanation of what is meant by deontological and teleological.  Secondly, I will describe how Christian ethics can be deontological and how they can be teleological, giving examples and using ethical theories, to illustrate each. Finally, I will try to give an idea about how a religious ethic can combine elements of a deontological with a teleological approach, including my own personal views of the argument.

Deontological Ethics (from the Greek Deon, meaning obligation) is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and rights, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus, the ends of any action never justify the means in this ethical system. If someone were to do their moral duty, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally.  Teleological moral systems are characterised primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have.  Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. When we make choices which result in the correct consequences, then we are acting morally; when we make choices which result in the incorrect consequences, then we are acting immorally.

Some Christians and philosophers insist that the correct approach to the making of ethical decisions is to begin by determining what the utmost good in life is.  If this is true, we must look for the one thing for which we would sacrifice everything else.  Discovering it, we can understand what will determine our less significant decisions.  Everything else will have value in relationship to our movement toward that utmost good.  In simple terms, the question is, what do we want out of life; happiness, power, the approval of someone else, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of being true to ourselves? Once we have answered this question we can evaluate things in terms of whether they would help us reach our objective or would interfere with attaining it.  This approach is teleological, because it is concerned with movement towards an ultimate objective.  Other Christians and philosophers, however, put duty first.  Duty is derived from value; we ought to do what helps achieve the goal.  The word duty refers to an obligation that is based on a relationship or that results from one’s station in life.  It is closely related to the word responsibility, which implies an action prompted by a sense of loyalty to something outside the self.  The person who acts from duty acts not in order to reach a goal, but because of an inner commitment.  The focus is on the motive rather than on the objective.  Satisfaction comes from doing one’s duty; the good life is the life of response to the inner sense of compulsion.  In that sense, value is derived from duty.  Such theories are deontological, concerned with movement from a basic obligation.

Join now!

Two teleological theories are utilitarianism, which values actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people, and situation ethics, which values actions that produce the most love-filled result.  Joseph Fletcher was the most eloquent spokesperson for the situationist approach to Christian ethics.  The central affirmation is his ‘nonsystem,’ as he called it, is that the only ethical absolute is love.  “There is only one thing that is always good and right, intrinsically good regardless of context,” says Fletcher, “and that one thing is love”.  He said “when we say that love is ...

This is a preview of the whole essay