In our everyday life, we are always faced by many dilemmas. Most of them are very difficult to solve or even understand. The primary basis of getting through these problems is by considering ethics. The two approaches used in this concept are the deontological and the teleological approach.
The main difference between the two is where the judgment, whether this is good or bad, should be made. In the deontological approach, the judgment lies in the beginning or at the time of doing.That is, if you’re now doing your duty or doing what is good, then you are doing ethical actions whether in the end it may have bad results or will have bad effects to something. On the other hand, the teleological approach emphasizes the consequences of what one is doing, that is, the judgment of morality lies at the end or after the action is done. Thus, whether the action seems bad for someone but if it will have benefits or will result to good, then that action is ethical.For example, lying to cover someone or that will result to goodness is bad through the deontological approach since it violates the duty of being honest, but it is good in teleological because it helps to the goodness of someone.
Like what is stated, the basis of making decisions in every dilemma is the ethics. The set of instruction or principles used in ethics is stored or compiled in a framework called ethical systems. There are seven known ethical systems namely, the ethical formalism, utilitarianism, religion, natural law, ethics of virtue, ethics of care, and the egoism.The ethical formalism is a good example to show the deontological approach in applying ethics.
In this system, the basis of judgment is merely on the motive of doing the action. If the motive is good whether it still results to something bad, then the action is good. Similarly, if there is an ulterior motive in doing the action whether it will benefit others, then the action will be considered bad. The basis of saying “good” or “bad” lies in universal concepts that states that what is good must be good for everyone.For example, if your friend asks you to help her in her assignment and you said yes to her, then your action can either be considered good or bad according to the motive. If you’re sincere in helping her, or you’re not expecting any reward for doing so, then your action is good.
Your action is bad is you’re expecting a reward, say a free dinner. On the other hand, a very good example in seeing the teleological approach is the utilitarianism. Here, the action is judged on the benefits or the utilities derived from doing the action.If it will benefit many or will have larger benefits even if it is not consistent with our duties, then the action is moral. That is, it is ok to sacrifice one or do harm to someone if it will mean doing something good for a larger group.
Take for example a poor family that really needs money to save their child from sickness. For them, stealing is the only way. In this situation stealing can be considered moral since the life of their child is more important than the loss of money of someone. The third system which maybe is the most common is religion.Most of the religion has absolute truths and a universal law of what is good and what is right which are based on a Supreme Being.
The basis of saying that something is moral is if it is consistent with the will of the Supreme Being. For example, in Christianity, killing is immoral since it is not the will of the Supreme Being while loving is a must since it is the will of the Supreme Being. Hence, even if you have the opportunity to harm your enemy, you must still choose to love him because that is the right thing to do as told by his religion.I think religion uses more of the deontological approach since it has a predetermined set of rules although some of the teachings require the good of the consequence. The natural law simply abides by the rule that morality is the natural. This means, that something is moral if it happens naturally.
For example, according to the Natural Selection of Charles Darwin, competition is important and “survival of the fittest” is the law of nature. Thus, if we apply this law to the human race, competition or using others to survive or become the best is moral since it is just natural or human nature.In this system, there are rules consistent with the natural or natural movement, or simply the Law of Morality is just similar to the Law of Gravitation. That’s the idea. I think, by these statements, it uses both approaches and almost of the same magnitude since natural events are predetermined and are consistent with the consequences. The next system, the ethics of virtue, emphasizes not the goodness of the action but it is more concern with the personality.
It uses the teleological approach since it stated that certain sets of virtues must be possessed in order to attain happiness of “eudaimonia.”In this system, a good person is the one that has the set of virtues required such as truthfulness, courage, self-control, etc. For example, a person who lacks courage cannot react easily to situation. For instance, he’s on a job interview.
Since he lacks courage then he must be afraid or nervous and so he is more likely to not impress the interviewer. Hence, he’s not accepted. Thus, in this system, he is not a good person. According to study, the ethics of care is much similar to how mothers or women, in general, would treat situations.
It is consistent with the fact that in any dilemma, what is right will be what is needed by the needy. It is more concern than the relationships with others than any other existing law. For example, if someone does wrong resulting to putting him on jail. Then, according to the ethics of care, he must be treated in the following way.
Unlike the usual punishment of having imprisonment and all others made by law, he must be free since freedom is what is needed by everyone even if he’s a criminal. It is better to talk to him and lend an ear to listen to his problem, and eventually help him in any way possible.I think this system is more of the deontological approach. What may happen next after the action is not the concern of the one that follows the ethics of care. Egoism, the last of the seven, is the system with much importance on the individuality. What is good or moral here is what will help one in his survival and pursuit of his dreams.
Even if he uses other people or does harm to somebody just to attain what he want to become, then that is still a moral act. For example, one may help other because he wants satisfaction. Another example will be one helping other so that at one point, he can seek favor to that person.In egoism, what is relative is what people want. Certainly, it uses the teleological approach since it is concerned with the consequence of the action.
Of the seven ethical systems described, I think the best that will suits me still is the religion. Not because it is what I learned or what is imposed to me by my parents but because all of them have flaws, since truth and “good” is mostly relative, and that religion is the one that has the least amount of flaw on it. Maybe because religion uses or is consistent with some of the remaining six, that’s why it is still common and the most popular of them.
