Teleological Theory vs Deontological Theory

ClarificationsTo better clarify the items under discussion, I will further explain both the deontological and the teleological ethics’ rationales.Deontology, or duty-based morality, is hinged on the idea that certain actions are objectively immoral regardless of consequence. Let us, for example, take a set of means towards an end. The deontological extremist would say that if any single element within this set of means is, by itself, an objectively immoral act, then the end does not justify the means no matter what the end result of not following the path outlined by the set of means may beConversely, a teleological extremist argues that, given numerous sets of means toward a set of ends with each set of means leading to its respective set of ends, it is ethically obligatory to follow the path outlined by the set of means which leads to the most preferable end even if it means committing objectively immoral acts.Now I am not going to argue that deontology is the best code of ethics to follow. That is not my obligation. This debate only requires for me to show that deontology is better than teleology.My Arguments:Deontology is preferable to teleology for several reasons. Deontology is societally necessary. It accounts for individual human subjectivity, and is, in practice, much more efficient than the teleological line of ethics.1) Deontology is more efficient and practical than Teleology.The process of determining the morality of an action in deontological ethics is simply whether or not the action in itself is moral. Teleological ethics, however, are complex due to the fact that it requires its practitioners to consider the consequences of an action in order to determine the morally correct action. Let us take, for example, the popular strain of teleological ethics known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism relies on complex calculi (i.e. Bentham’s calculus[1]) in order to determine the quantitative results and thus morality of an action. Herein lies several of teleological ethics’ problems.While deontological ethical codes are very straightforward, teleological ethics are not. Every action has an infinite number of consequences and many have vast numbers of likely consequences. In order for a teleological ethics to function in full, it necessarily needs to account for every single consequence of every possible action. To put it in another way: teleological ethics in general, by definition, requires the conscious practitioner to consider an infinite set of infinite means toward a similarly infinite set of ends. Teleology, in its purest form is impossible.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. 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. What if someone worse than Hitler rose in pace of Hitler? We only know what Hitler was capable of committing because we live in a post-Hitler society. To teleologically decide whether or not an action in the past would have been moral (i.e. killing baby Adolf Hitler) is absurd. To help define the code of ethics to be followed for contemporary and future populace, ethical arbitration is necessarily constrained to determining the application of ethics prior to events whose results are yet to be ascertained.In a similar strain, my opponent’s arguments, which assumes the practitioner of ethics necessarily knows the end result(s) of some set of means, is not feasible in practice. A tree’s inflammation causes the surrounding woods to catch fire. You cannot know that cutting down the first tree to catch fire in a forest will prevent a forest fire. What if cutting down that tree will, by itself, cause a forest fire? What if that forest fire will happen regardless of whether or not that tree existed? What if cutting down that tree had other unintended consequences (i.e. crashes into baby Mahatma Gandhi)? You cannot know.In theory, a proponent of teleological ethics can present scenarios which would make it sound nice, but in practice, teleological ethics is simply unfeasible.2) Deontology accounts for individual subjectivityThe converse of this statement is that teleological ethics, contrary to a similar contention given by my opponent above, is much too objective. Teleological ethics seek to produce results which are numerically superior to that of other results. This means that, given a limited set of choices, the morally correct choice would be the one which would produce the objectively greater end result. Let us take, 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. 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.Deontological ethics, which allows for individual, subjective desires, does not place such consequential restrictions. If given a choice between two groups of children, even if one group has more than the other, deontological ethics does not decree that it is morally wrong to save the less populated group, thus allowing for a much greater degree of subjective moral freedom.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.3) Deontology is enjoys much greater success and implementation than teleoogy does.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. If my opponent would like to dispute either the attribution of laws to deontology or the practicality and effects of laws within society, I’d be glad to respond in kind. Otherwise, I will hold that deontology is much more societally practical and, in some cases, even necessary.Thus, deontology enjoys much greater application and success than does teleology.Closing statement:I am not arguing that deontological ethics is the best system of ethics. Deontology and teleology, in terms of ethics, are two moral extremes. My only goal was to show that the extreme of deontology is superior to that of teleology. While both ethical systems contain severe faults (which both my opponent and I have outlined in anecdotal examples), I believe the faults of teleological ethics far exceed those of deontological ethics. The merits of the latter also far exceed those of the former. Thus, deontological ethics is superior to that of teleological ethics as was required of the CON side. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...