TEJERO, ROSHIN MAE E.
BSN 2B
Define deontology, teleology, and utilitarianism in your own words.
Deontology
- Deontology is a theory that suggests actions good or bad according to a set of rules.
Deontology is the way people judge the morality and the actions of other based on rules.
- For example:
A girl is on her way home when suddenly an unknown man hostage her, she
immediately to her scissors on her bag and use it against the man hostaging her.
The man suddenly fell on the floor and found death, and the girl run away and
immediately called the police. In this situation it is an example of deontology
because some people believe that killing people is bad, in this situation she killed
the man because it was just self defense.
Teleology
- A teleology is an account of a given thing's purpose.
- Teleology is the process of explaining something through its function or purpose, rather
than what caused it, or the thing itself. There are several aspects or “genres” of teleology,
and I’ll try to explain a few:
Teleology is a common practice in ethics. Like the definition implies, using
teleology in ethics means you consider and explain actions based on the end
result. Some might consider stealing bad, but a teleological thinker may say, “but
in the end, I’m stealing to feed my family, which is good, so the action is good.”
In other words, an action’s “goodness” is based off the outcome.
A second example of teleology is in philosophy. Early philosophers used intrinsic
teleology to explain most aspects of the world by saying objects exist to serve
their purpose: an acorn is created to turn into an oak tree; man was created to rule
the earth; apple trees exist to provide food for people. Intrinsic teleology explains
things through what they do or are “meant” to do, and is debated among religious
and philosophical groups.
Finally my own example , more-concrete aspect of teleology is extrinsic
teleology. Just like intrinsic teleology implies things have “natural purposes,”
extrinsic teleology is explains objects based on what purpose was “forced” upon
them such as a food exists to eat, a motorcycle exists to drive, and for the lastly
most concrete example is a person exists to live.
Utilitarianism
- Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on
outcomes.
- Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest
good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify
military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in
business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits. However,
because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the
consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of
utilitarianism.
- Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights.
For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ
transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the
hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This
would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would
consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.
Types of Utilitarianism
There are basically two branches of utilitarianism. They both agree that the goal of ethics is to
maximize happiness. But they disagree on where that decision should be applied:
Act Utilitarianism argues that we should always choose our actions based on what will
cause the greatest amount of happiness.
Rule Utilitarianism argues that we should figure out what sort of
behavior usually causes happiness, and turn it into a set of rules.
Example:
Take the example of a judge sending a murderer to prison. Say the judge knows the convict will
not commit any more violent crimes, and wants to be lenient based on this knowledge (maybe
the convict is very old or terminally ill). The judge knows that this will make the convict very
happy, not to mention their family and friends. Imagine that the victim’s family has forgiven the
convict and will not feel pain as a result of this decision.
Should the judge let the convict go? Act utilitarinism says yes, because this maximizes happiness
while causing no future pain in this case. But rule utilitarianism says no, because in
general convicts must be punished for their crimes, even if there is no chance that they will
commit future crimes. The judge should follow the rules, according to this argument, even if in
this particular case the rule isn’t necessary.
