Teleological Ethics

Telos is a Greek word for "end", or goal. Not end as in the "end of the road", but as in
"the end which we seek." Teleology gives the reason or an explanation for something as
a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.

James Wood Explained the meaning of teleology as "the doctrine of final causes,
particularly the argument for the being and character of God from the being and
character of His works; that the end reveals His purpose from the beginning, the end
being regarded as the thought of God at the beginning, or the universe viewed as the
realization of Him and His eternal purpose.

A purpose that is imposed by human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is
called extrinsic. Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy, though controversial
today, contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, regardless of human
use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to
become a fully grown oak tree. Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural
teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored
and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during
the modern era (1600–1900).

HISTORY
In Western philosophy, the term and concept of teleology originated in the writings of
Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle's 'four causes' give special place to the telos or "final cause"
of each thing. In this, he followed Plato in seeing purpose in both human and nonhuman
nature

Platonic

In Plato's dialogue Phaedo, Socrates argues that true explanations for any given
physical phenomenon must be teleological. He bemoans those who fail to distinguish
between a thing's necessary and sufficient causes, which he identifies respectively as
material and final causes

Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the
cause would not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like
people groping in the dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not
belong to it. That is why one man surrounds the earth with a vortex to make the heavens
keep it in place, another makes the air support it like a wide lid. As for their capacity of
being in the best place they could be at this very time, this they do not look for, nor do
they believe it to have any divine force, but they believe that they will sometime discover
a stronger and more immortal Atlas to hold everything together more, and they do not
believe that the truly good and 'binding' binds and holds them together.

Socrates here argues that while the materials that compose a body are necessary
conditions for its moving or acting in a certain way, they nevertheless cannot be the
sufficient condition for its moving or acting as it does. For example if Socrates is sitting
in an Athenian prison, the elasticity of his tendons is what allows him to be sitting, and
so a physical description of his tendons can be listed as necessary conditions or
auxiliary causes of his act of sitting. However, these are only necessary conditions of
Socrates' sitting. To give a physical description of Socrates' body is to say that Socrates is
sitting, but it does not give any idea why it came to be that he was sitting in the first
place. To say why he was sitting and not sitting, it is necessary to explain what it is about
his sitting that is good, for all things brought about (i.e., all products of actions) are
brought about because the actor saw some good in them. Thus, to give an explanation of
something is to determine what about it is good. Its goodness is its actual cause—its
purpose, telos or 'reason for which'.

Aristotelian

Aristotle argued that Democritus was wrong to attempt to reduce all things to mere
necessity, because doing so neglects the aim, order, and "final cause", which brings
about these necessary conditions:

Democritus, however, neglecting the final cause, reduces to necessity all the
operations of nature. Now, they are necessary, it is true, but yet they are for a final cause
and for the sake of what is best in each case. Thus, nothing prevents the teeth from
being formed and being shed in this way; but it is not on account of these causes but on
account of the end. ...

— Aristotle, Generation of Animals

In Physics, using the hylomorphic theory, (using eternal forms as his model), Aristotle
rejects Plato's assumption that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. For
Aristotle, natural ends are produced by "natures" (principles of change internal to living
things), and natures, Aristotle argued, do not deliberate:

It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present in nature because we do not see an
agent deliberating.
These Platonic and Aristotelian arguments ran counter to those presented earlier by
Democritus and later by Lucretius, both of whom were supporters of what is now often
called accidentalism:

Nothing in the body is made in order that we may use it. What happens to exist is the
cause of its use.

A teleology of human aims played a crucial role in the work of economist Ludwig von
Mises. Mises believed that an individual's action is teleological because it is governed by
the existence of their chosen ends. In other words, individuals select what they believe
to be the most appropriate means to achieve a sought after goal or end. Mises also
stressed that, with respect to human action, teleology is not independent of causality:
"No action can be devised and ventured upon without definite ideas about the relation of
cause and effect, teleology presupposes causality.

Assuming reason and action to be predominantly influenced by ideological credence,

Mises derived his portrayal of human motivation from Epicurean teachings, insofar as
he assumes "atomistic individualism, teleology, and libertarianism, and defines man as
an egoist who seeks a maximum of happiness" (i.e. the ultimate pursuit of pleasure over
pain). "Man strives for," Mises remarks, "but never attains the perfect state of happiness
described by Epicurus.

Teleological-based "grand narratives" are renounced by the postmodern tradition,

where teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary, and harmful to those whose
stories are diminished or overlooked.

Against this postmodern position, Alasdair Macintyre has argued that a narrative
understanding of oneself, of one's capacity as an independent reasoner, one's
dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one
participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may
themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example,
practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the
elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. Macintyre’s After Virtue (1981)
famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle's "metaphysical biology", but
he has cautiously moved from that book's account of a sociological teleology toward an
exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism.

Teleological theories, also known as consequentialist ethics, derive moral duty or

obligation from what is considered good or desirable as an end to be achieved. Unlike
deontological ethics, which holds that the basic standards for moral rightness are
independent of the outcomes, teleological theories focus on the consequences of actions.
Here are some key points about teleological ethics:
1. Eudaemonist Theories: These theories emphasize the cultivation of virtue or
excellence in the agent as the ultimate end of all action. For example, classical
virtues like courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom promote the Greek ideal of
humans as “rational animals.” Similarly, theological virtues like faith, hope, and
love align with the Christian concept of humans created in the image of God.
2. Utilitarianism: A prominent teleological theory, utilitarianism posits that the
end goal of actions is to maximize overall happiness or pleasure. Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick advocated for this view,
emphasizing the “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Pleasure serves as
the desired experience produced by actions.
3. Other Views: Various teleological or utilitarian-type perspectives exist:
1. Evolutionary Ethics: Herbert Spencer proposed that survival and
growth are the ultimate ends of action.
2. Despotism: Niccolò Machiavelli and Friedrich Nietzsche associated
power with the end goal.
3. Pragmatism: Ralph Barton Perry and John Dewey linked satisfaction
and adjustment to action.
4. Existentialism: Jean-Paul Sartre considered freedom as the essential
end.

In summary, teleological ethics looks at the outcomes and aims to achieve desirable
ends through actions.
Case study: Ethical Dilemma in the Tech Industry: A Teleological Analysis - Elon
Musk's Conundrum

Elon Musk, a renowned entrepreneur and CEO of a leading tech company, discovers
that the company's autonomous vehicle software contains a critical safety flaw that
could potentially lead to life-threatening accidents. If Musk reports the flaw, it will likely
result in a significant loss of revenue for the company and damage to its reputation. On
the other hand, if he keeps quiet, the flaw may never be discovered, and the company's
profits will remain intact.

Teleological Analysis:

In this case, Elon Musk is faced with a moral dilemma. From a teleological perspective,
he must consider the consequences of his actions and choose the course of action that
will result in the best overall outcome. Consequentialism, a form of teleological ethics,
focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions rather than the inherent morality of
the actions themselves.

If Musk reports the security flaw, the potential consequences could include financial
losses for the company, damage to its reputation, and potential impact on his personal
wealth and influence. On the other hand, if he chooses not to report the flaw, the
consequences could involve putting countless lives at risk due to potential accidents
caused by the software flaw.

Using a consequentialist approach, Musk must weigh the potential outcomes of his
actions and determine which course of action will lead to the greatest overall good. He
must consider not only the immediate consequences for himself and the company but
also the long-term impact on public safety and trust in autonomous vehicles.

Resolution: Ultimately, Elon Musk decides to report the safety flaw to his company's
stakeholders and take immediate action to rectify it. Despite the potential negative
consequences for the company's finances and his own reputation, Musk believes that
protecting public safety and ensuring the integrity of his company's products outweighs
any potential financial costs. By prioritizing public safety and acting in accordance with
teleological ethics, Musk demonstrates a commitment to considering the broader
consequences of his actions and making decisions based on the greatest overall good.

This case study illustrates how teleological ethics, specifically consequentialism, can be
applied in real-world scenarios to guide decision-making based on the outcomes and
consequences of actions, even for influential figures like Elon Musk.

 What do we learn from this case?

What we learn from this is Elon Musk's handling of the safety flaw dilemma showcases
a commitment to public safety, long-term reputation management, ethical leadership,
and consequentialist decision-making. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and
corporate responsibility, Musk sets an example for leaders to consider the well-being of
all stakeholders and uphold ethical standards even in challenging situations. His actions
highlight the importance of balancing financial interests with ethical considerations and
demonstrating a strong moral compass in decision-making processes. Overall, Musk's
approach emphasizes the significance of prioritizing public safety, integrity, and
transparency in leadership roles to build trust, credibility, and long-term success.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or
study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of
normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or
permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that
guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to
those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue]
theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices,
deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in
opposition to consequentialists.
Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist ones,
a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate its
deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological theories
themselves. Consequentialists hold those choices—acts and/or intentions—are to be
morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about. Consequentialists can
and do differ widely in terms of specifying the Good. Some consequentialists are
monists about the Good. Utilitarians, for example, identify the Good with pleasure,
happiness, desire satisfaction, or “welfare” in some other sense. Other consequentialists
are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is
distributed among persons (or all sentient beings) is itself partly constitutive of the
Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person’s share of
the Good to achieve the Good’s maximization.

Consequentialism is known as deontology’s foil and is in contrast with the ideas and
theories of deontological ethics.

In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of

choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about. The
most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast
to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no
matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden. On
such familiar deontological accounts of morality, people cannot make certain wrongful
choices even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be
minimized (because other people will be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful
choices).

Deontological theories include:

1. Agent-centered deontological theories: the view that the personal situation

of agents, together with their personal desires and projects, gives rise to genuine
moral restrictions and goals. The view opposes the impartial, impersonal, or
public aspect of traditional moral thinking, including utilitarianism, which seeks
to minimize the agent's perspective in favor of that of a general point of view, an
ideal observer, or an objective sum of all affected utilities.
2. Patient-Centered Deontological Theories: are rights-based rather than
duty-based. All patient-centered deontological theories are properly
characterized as theories premised on people’s rights.
3. Contractualist Deontological Theories: are in the middle of agent-centered
and patient-centered theories. Morally wrong acts are, on such accounts, those
acts that would be forbidden by principles that people in a suitably described
social contract would accept or that would be forbidden only by principles that
such people could not reasonably reject.
If any philosopher is regarded as central to deontological moral theories, it is surely
Immanuel Kant. Indeed, each of the branches of deontological ethics—the agent-
centered, the patient-centered, and the contractualist—can lay claim to being Kantian.

Advantages of deontological ethics

Having canvassed the two main types of deontological theories (together with a
contractualist variation of each), it is time to assess deontological morality more
generally. On the one hand, deontological morality, in contrast to consequentialism,
leaves space for agents to give special concern to their families, friends, and projects. At
least that is so if the deontological morality contains no strong duty of general
beneficence, or, if it does, it places a cap on that duty’s demands. Deontological
morality, therefore, avoids the overly demanding and alienating aspects of
consequentialism and accords more with conventional notions of our moral duties.
Likewise, deontological moralities, unlike most views of consequentialism, leave space
for the supererogatory. A deontologist can do more that is morally praiseworthy than
morality demands. A consequentialist cannot, assuming none of the consequentialists’
defensive maneuvers earlier referenced work. For such a pure or simple
consequentialist, if one’s act is not morally demanded, it is morally wrong and
forbidden. Whereas for the deontologist, there are acts that are neither morally wrong
nor demanded, some—but only some—of which are morally praiseworthy. As we have
seen, deontological theories all possess the strong advantage of being able to account for
strong, widely shared moral intuitions about our duties better than can
consequentialism. The contrasting reactions to Trolley, Fat Man, Transplant, and other
examples earlier given, are illustrative of this. Finally, deontological theories, unlike
consequentialist ones, have the potential for explaining why certain people have moral
standing to complain about and hold to account those who breach moral duties. For the
moral duties typically thought to be deontological in character—unlike, say, duties
regarding the environment—are duties to particular people, not duties to bring about
states of affairs that no particular person has an individual right to have realized.

Disadvantage of deontological ethics

On the other hand, deontological theories have their own weak spots. The most glaring
one is the seeming irrationality of our having duties or permissions to make the world
morally worse. Deontologists need their own, non-consequentialist model of rationality,
one that is a viable alternative to the intuitively plausible, “act-to-produce-the-
bestconsequences” model of rationality that motivates consequentialist theories. Until
this is done, deontology will always be paradoxical. There are several distinct hurdles
that the deontologist must overcome. One hurdle is to confront the apparent fact that
careful reflection about the degrees of wrongdoing that are possible under any single
moral norm does not make it easy to see deontological morality as consisting of general,
canonically-formulated texts (conformity to which could then be said to constitute the
distrinct form of practical rationality unique to deontological ethics); rather, such
apparently simple texts as, “thou shalt not murder,” look more like mere epistemic aids
summarizing a much more nuanced and detailed (and thus less text-like) moral reality
(Hurd and Moore forthcoming). A second hurdle is to find an answer to the inevitable
question of authority, assuming that there are such general texts. If it is rational to
conform one’s behavior and one’s choices to certain general texts, as deontology claims,
it is always in point to demand the reasons making such texts authoritative for one’s
decisions. Deferring one’s own best judgment to the judgment enshrined in some text is
always prima facie paradoxical (see the entry on authority) and deontologists like
everybody else need to justify such deference. Hopefully they can do so other than by
reference to some person-like but omniscient Deity as the supposed source of such texts,
because many deontologists cannot accept such theism (Moore 1995). Moreover, even
for those with theistic commitments, they may prefer to join Kant’s insistence that ethics
proceed from reason alone, even in a theistic world.

Case Study: Deontological Ethics

Scenario: Martin Luther King Jr., a prominent leader in the American civil rights
movement, is faced with the systemic oppression of African Americans in the United
States. He witnesses widespread racial discrimination, segregation, and violence against
his community. King knows that if he challenges the status quo, it will likely result in
personal danger, imprisonment, and opposition from powerful political and social
forces. On the other hand, if he remains silent, the systemic oppression may continue,
and African Americans will continue to suffer injustice.

Deontological Analysis:

In this case, Martin Luther King Jr. is confronted with a moral dilemma. From a
deontological perspective, he must consider his moral duties and obligations, regardless
of the consequences. Deontological ethics emphasizes the inherent morality of actions
and the importance of upholding universal moral principles.

If King chooses to confront the injustice, the potential consequences could include
personal danger, imprisonment, and opposition from powerful forces. However, if he
chooses not to challenge the status quo, the consequences could involve perpetuating
systemic oppression and denying African Americans their rights and dignity.

Using a deontological approach, King must prioritize his duty to confront injustice and
uphold the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals. He must act in accordance with
universal moral principles, regardless of the potential risks and consequences for
himself.

Resolution:

Ultimately, Martin Luther King Jr. decides to confront the systemic oppression through
nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, despite the potential negative
consequences for himself. He believes that upholding the moral duty to challenge
injustice and protect human dignity outweighs the personal risks and opposition he may
face. By prioritizing his moral obligations and acting in accordance with deontological
ethics, King demonstrates a commitment to confronting systemic oppression based on
universal moral principles.

This case study illustrates how deontological ethics can be applied in real-world
scenarios to guide decision-making based on fulfilling moral duties and upholding
universal moral principles, regardless of the potential consequences.

We learn several key lessons from this particular scenario:

1. Moral Courage: King demonstrated unwavering moral courage by standing up

against systemic oppression and injustice, even in the face of personal danger and
opposition. His commitment to nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience serves as an
inspiring example of moral courage in the pursuit of justice.

2. Commitment to Nonviolence: King's advocacy for nonviolent resistance as a

means of social change highlights the power of peaceful protest and civil disobedience.
His approach emphasizes the importance of resolving conflicts through peaceful means
and the transformative potential of nonviolent action.

3. Upholding Universal Moral Principles: King's adherence to universal moral

principles, such as equality, justice, and human dignity, serves as a reminder of the
importance of upholding ethical standards and fundamental rights for all individuals,
regardless of personal risks or challenges.

4. Leadership and Empowerment: King's leadership in the civil rights movement

exemplifies the ability to inspire and empower others to work towards a common goal.
His inclusive and empowering leadership style mobilized people from diverse
backgrounds to advocate for social change.

5. Persistence and Resilience: King's unwavering dedication to the cause of civil

rights, despite facing numerous obstacles and setbacks, demonstrates the importance of
persistence and resilience in pursuing meaningful change.
6. Advocacy for Social Change: King's legacy underscores the significance of
advocating for systemic change and addressing social injustices through activism,
community organizing, and public engagement.

These lessons from Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and work continue to inspire
individuals and movements around the world, serving as a powerful reminder of the
enduring impact of ethical leadership, moral courage, and commitment to justice.

Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics, also known as virtue theory, is a normative ethical theory that places
emphasis on the moral character of individuals and the cultivation of virtuous traits as
the foundation for ethical behavior. Virtue ethics differs from other ethical theories,
such as teleological (consequentialist) and deontological (duty-based) ethics, in several
key ways:

1. Focus on Character: Virtue ethics places primary importance on the moral

character of individuals rather than on the consequences of actions (teleological ethics)
or adherence to moral rules or duties (deontological ethics). Virtue theorists argue that
ethical behavior arises from the cultivation of virtuous character traits, such as honesty,
compassion, courage, and wisdom.

2. Virtue as the End Goal: In virtue ethics, the ultimate goal of ethical decision-
making is to develop and embody virtuous character traits rather than achieving a
particular outcome (teleological ethics) or following specific moral rules (deontological
ethics). Virtue theorists believe that living a virtuous life leads to eudaimonia, or human
flourishing and well-being.

3. Moral Education and Development: Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of

moral education and personal growth in developing virtuous character. Individuals are
encouraged to reflect on their values, motivations, and actions in order to cultivate
virtues that guide their ethical behavior.

4. Practical Wisdom: Virtue ethics highlights the role of practical wisdom, or

phronesis, in ethical decision-making. Practical wisdom involves the ability to discern
the right course of action in specific situations based on one's understanding of virtues
and moral principles.

5. Virtue Ethics vs. Teleological Ethics: Teleological (consequentialist) ethics, such

as utilitarianism, focus on the outcomes or consequences of actions in determining their
moral value. In contrast, virtue ethics prioritizes the development of virtuous character
traits as the foundation for ethical decision-making, rather than solely focusing on
achieving desirable outcomes.

6. Virtue Ethics vs. Deontological Ethics: Deontological (duty-based) ethics,

such as Kantian ethics, emphasize following moral rules or duties as the basis for ethical
behavior. Virtue ethics differs from deontological ethics by focusing on the cultivation of
virtuous character traits rather than strict adherence to moral obligations.

In summary, virtue ethics offers a unique perspective on ethics by emphasizing the

importance of developing virtuous character traits and cultivating moral excellence as
essential components of leading a good and meaningful life. Unlike teleological and
deontological ethics, which focus on outcomes or duties, virtue ethics prioritizes the
moral character of individuals and the cultivation of virtues as central to ethical
decision-making.

Reference The Oxford Handbook of Virtue" edited by Nancy E. Snow

Reference
https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleological-ethics
https://study.com/academy/lesson/teleological-ethics-theories-examples.html
https://en.wikipedia.