Teleological Theory vs Deontological Theory

Rebuttals: 1) Deontology is more efficient and practical than Teleology. Con says “While deontological ethical codes are very straightforward, teleological ethics are not.” I agree, and as society is not straightforward or simplistic an ethical system that can adapt to circumstances is preferred. Con says “Another problem with teleological ethics is that it is necessarily built on hypotheticals. It is impossible to know for certain that an action performed will result in an intended consequence.” Granted you cannot know the future, there are clearly cases where deontology would fail. For example: If abortion is deemed inherently immoral, deontology deems that it is immoral regardless of the circumstance. Even in the case of an 11 year old victim of rape who will die otherwise. This rigidness created by deontology could be regarded as simply or easy to apply, yet clearly creates a paradox of morality. This problem is easily overcome with teleology. Con says “The action of killing Hitler is a great counterexample. It is impossible to know, for certain, that the Nazi system will not arise or be sustained in some way or form without Hitler.” The example of killing Hitler serves as an example that if you could know the outcome then morally you would not question it. The example is not intended as an example of how to apply teleology so much as show that there clearly exists circumstances where an action, like killing a young Hitler, could be morally justified if we knew the outcome. It is not an example suggesting that one can know or will know the consequences in such a circumstance. Con says “but in practice, teleological ethics is simply unfeasible.” Far from unfeasible, teleological ethics is much more plausible and practical then deontological ethics. 2) Deontology accounts for individual subjectivity. Con says “for example, someone who is given the option to save two children at the cost of the life of one child and vice versa. Under teleological ethics, the moral decision would be to sacrifice the life of one child to save the other two because the teleologically superior consequence would be the one in which only one child dies.” Contrary to what con has stated thus far, teleologically the moral decision could be to sacrifice the life of one child to save the other two. It does not dictate that it is, rather that it could be the moral action. Deontology deals in much more definite terms. In fact, in this example deontology might deem it immoral to sacrifice either group. However, given the circumstances such an action of saving both is impossible, thus Deontology would deem any action taken immoral including inaction. Thus we see how impractical deontology is. While Teleology offers potential moral options, deontology does not. Con continues “Even if the child is the subject’s own child, the subject is morally obligated to abandon his subjective desires to achieve the objectively greater result under teleological ethics. Teleology is a cold-hearted system.” This “morally obligation” is not teleological but rather deontological in nature. This is because it is duty based. Again this circumstance from a deontological perspective it becomes the duty to save both, though impossible, any other action is immoral and thus Deontology is unfeasible. Con says “Deontological ethics, which allows for individual, subjective desires, does not place such consequential restrictions.” There is no individual, subjective desires to a duty based ethics. Con says “Again, contrary to my opponent’s claim, it is the teleological ethical systems, rather than the deontological ones, which are much too objective and restrictive.” We clearly disagree. Teleology gives options of what could be moral. Deontological renders actions as duties and left unfulfilled deems the omission immoral. 3) Deontology is enjoys much greater success and implementation than teleoogy does. Con says “Our societies recognize the necessity of deontology. The best example of its practical, societal application is the existence of societies’ laws. Laws are by nature deontological, and, in order to function smoothly, society’s necessarily implement laws.” Laws in the most basic sense are deontological. However, they are enforced in modern society in a teleological way. That is why when one is accused of acting immorally, breaking the law, our society looks at the circumstances and the motives and then determines the morality of the action taken. Teleology does require a system of law, it just leaves room for circumstances to affect how moral an action is or is not. Extended arguments: My opponent has not addressed my argument “Paradox of deontological constraints.” Conclusion: Deontology, while simple and easy to apply to society is rigid and unreasonable. Teleology is much more plausible and practical. Society is too complex for the restraint of deontology. Deontological ethics can produce circumstances where no moral action is possible. Our society implements laws in a teleological way. Due to the realistic and practical approach of teleology, in contrast with the ethical paradox created by Deontological approaches, Teleology is preferred to deontology in approaching ethics.