Teleological Theory vs Deontological Theory

Rebuttals: Con says “ my opponent has conceded deontological ethics' efficiency. ” What I said… Deontology, while simple and easy to apply to society is rigid and unreasonable. This rigidness created by deontology could be regarded as simply or easy to apply, yet clearly creates a paradox of morality. (which has still not been addressed. ) Con says “I've contended and as my opponent has conceded, laws exist deontologically. Their wide societal implementation thus stands as a testament to its greater functional applicability relative to teleology. This directly negates my opponent's claim of deontology's inapplicability. ” What I said… 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. Con asks “how is teleological ethics having complexity alone make it more applicable to society than deontological ethics? ” It is not the complexity so much as flexibility of teleological ethics that make it more applicable. That flexibility could be regarded as complex when compared to rigid deontological approaches. Con says “In any case, my opponent necessarily needs to further prove that the idea deontology's lacking complexity makes it less applicable than teleology. ” The rigidness of Deontology is evident. The actions of killing, lying, stealing, etc are deemed immoral no matter the circumstances. Teleology has flexibility (complexity) A simple example is killing. It is not hard to see that the consequences of killing generally would be harmful, and thus immoral. However, what about killing in self-defense? Teleological theories, being more circumstantial/flexible then black and white deontology, may morally justify actions due to the consequences. Con says “Earlier I stated that teleological ethics is, in practice, simply unfeasible. ” “However, my opponent neither addresses the arguments which lead to that statement to which he nor presents any contention in favor of this assertion. ” I sure did. I will address it again. Con says “1) There are an infinite number of potential actions in a given scenario or set of scenarios. ” “2) Every action has an infinite number of potential consequences” “3) There are an infinite set of combinations of actions since the set of possible actions is, by itself, infinite. ” I agree with the first three points. Con says “4) Teleology necessitates the evaluation of every set of actions and consequences in order to determine the single consequence which holds the greatest value under teleological calculi. This is impossible. ” Teleology does not require such an extensive burden to act morally. Rather, it simply acknowledges that because there are an infinite number of potential actions, and every action has a consequence, that it is unrealistic to assume that these infinite possibilities could not impact the morality of an action. Deontology ignores this obvious fact. Thus Deontology is rigid and unreasonable. Con says “A real teleologist can say assertively that saving that 1 child and sacrificing the other 2 instead of vice versa is objectively immoral and that the objectively moral action is to save the 2 and let the 1 die. ” This is not so. “Teleology does not determine what may or may not be right via consequences, it determines what is or is not right. ” My opponent is assuming that all teleologist would agree that saving 2 children is the better consequence to saying 1 child. However, we have not debated a specific type of consequentialism… or a specific value based ethics. meaning that the one child may be of some importance that would increase the benefit of saving the one over the other two. Again this is the flexibility of teleology. You are able to look at as many factors as possible. Deontology is duty based. The example that my opponent presented included the idea of “sacrificing” one group in favor of the other. No real Deontologist would be able to morally “sacrifice” either group. Duty would demand that no such sacrifice under any circumstance would be moral. Thus the example given there is no moral action a deontologist could make. Ergo Deontology = Rigid. Teleology= flexible. Con next argues that “Teleology is also much too subjective. ” This is a foolish argument as con stated in round two that “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. ” My opponent cannot claim that teleological ethical systems are “much too objective” and then also argue that “Teleology is much too subjective. ” Regardless I will respond to con’s examples Example 1: This example is full of holes. Say the man does kill with the idea that it will save the group. Are you saying that is no less immoral then killing in cold blood? That is foolishness. As for the statement that “he burns for an eternity…. ” This debate has nothing to do with religion or God. We are talking about societies morals, not whatever your God may deem moral or not. Example 2: As far as I understood we were talking about societies approach as a whole. This example is ridiculous as you can do the same with Deontological thinking. What if Obito accepts that all people are evil. His duty is to destroy all evil. Deontology would suggest his duty is to kill the entire human race. Needless to say both examples were ridiculous. Con says “Thus, under teleological ethics, it is morally correct to do anything to anyone as long as the practitioner believes that his teleological system and calculations are correct…. Teleological ethics can be used to justify anything and everything as long as the user believes that it does. ” As we accepted at the beginning of the debate… both approaches to ethics, Deontological and Teleological accept Objective morality. What you are suggesting is that an approach to objective ethics is morally relative. Rather Teleology and Deontology are opposed to moral relativism. As such your statement is nonsense. Again you can do the same with deontology. If some random person accepts murder as a personal/moral duty, is not that singular person acting Deontologically. Closing statement First I would like to thank Beginner for accepting and participating in this debate. This in depth look into Objective morality has been fascinating and educational. Both Teleology and Deontology accept objective morality. 1: Concluding thoughts on Deontology A: Deontology creates a moral paradox. B: Deontology is rigid and unreasonable. C: Deontology is unrealistic to assume that infinite possibilities could not impact the morality of an action. 2: Concluding thoughts on Teleology A: Teleology is flexible B: Teleology Acknowledges Circumstances have impact. C: Teleology is realistic and practice Due to what we have shown between Teleology and Deontology, it is clear that if one is to be chosen or preferred over the other, that choice would be Teleology. Thanks for reading!