INTRODUCTION

Steiner and Steiner (1999), define ethics as the study of good and bad, right and wrong,
just and unjust. The study of ethics is the study that deals with fundamental human
relationships; ethics is a set of roles that characterize right or wrong conduct (1). By the
same token, De George (1999), defines ethics as an efficient endeavor to comprehend
our individual social and moral experiences, so as to decide the standards that should
guide human conduct, the values worth seeking for and the character attribute deserving
advancement in life.

Due to the broad spectrum of ethics; this paper focuses on two ethical streams, the
Telological ethics and the Deotological ethics.

The first philosophical position is teleological “contrasting the good of the

individual with the good of the community”.

The second philosophical view is deontological “the relative social norms, rights,
and duties in various cultures and communities”.

TELOLOGICAL ETHICS

Teleological ethics also known as “Consequentialist Ethics” is the theory of morality

that draws moral obligations or duties from what is desirable or good as an end to be
attained (teleological from the Greek term telos, “end”; logos, “science”).
The teleological perspective holds that an act is morally right if it produces a greater
level of good over evil than any alternative act, and it is morally wrong if it does the
opposite . The teleological theories accept utility as the basis for morality.
According to this perspective, actions are right as they produce and promote the
greatest happiness, wrong as they promote unhappiness; happiness refers to pleasure.
Absence of pain; unhappiness, on the other hand, means pain and the deprivation of
pleasure. Helms and Hutchins (1992), argue that the teleological perspective of
ethics is emphasizing on the outcomes, despite the intent of individual
behavior.

Teleological Theories can be divided into-

(1) Ethical Egoism, (2) Act Utilitarianism, and (3) Rule Utilitarianism.

1. Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is individual‟s action is considered ethical or unethical
depending on its possibility to achieve personal interests . Egoism suggests that we
ought to do whatever to maximize our own self-interests, regardless of how our actions
might affect others. The interests of others are not the main goal of the egoism
perspective, others are seen as merely a medium by which our interest might be
maximized . In this case, all other effects of the action are not relevant to the ethical
decision. An action is thus considered as ethical only if the outcomes of that action are
more beneficial to the person than any other alternative action.

Generally speaking, egoism tells us to desire and accept that X harm us if this would
maximize his self-interest. However, we cannot accept or desire this, thus, we cannot
consistently agree on this principle. Hence, egoism cannot be accepted as a rational
perspective about the way how we should live. The inconsistency of the egoism
perspective gives a strong basis for rejecting its ethical stance. The problem with ethical
egoism is that it is self-defeating. Whilst egoists give an importance to their own
happiness, the egoistic view, in fact, is virtually guaranteed to make them unhappy.
When following egoism, we will get despised(unloved) by others and we will perhaps
end up disdaining(ignoring) ourselves. As a matter of fact, there are conflicts between
the personal good and the general good than many people can expect.

2. Utilitarianism
In the utilitarianism doctrine, an act is considered right if it is useful for boosting
happiness. Happiness according to utilitarianism is a sum of pleasures; pleasure is
good and pain is bad. An act is right if it produces good and prevents the bad. Thus, the
actions which we ought to do are the one that seems to promote the greatest possible
sum of happiness. Utilitarianism gets its name from “Utility”. The principle of
utility induces that we always ought to seek for the greatest happiness of the greatest
quantity. So in making choices and making decisions, we should find out which action or
decision will produce the utmost happiness compared with unhappiness or pain, and that
is the decision we ought to make. However, if we do not, we have made the wrong
decision.

. The principle contains a combination of three ideas:

Firstly, in deciding what we ought to do, we should be directed by the consequences of
our acts, moreover, we should act in a way that promotes the best consequences.
Secondly, in deciding what are the best consequences, we should give priority to the
greatest possible happiness or unhappiness that should result and we ought to do
whatever will result in producing the greatest happiness or the least pain or suffering.
Thirdly, the principle presumes that the happiness of an individual is equally
important to everyone else.
Utilitarianism has three basic characteristics. Firstly, it is consequentialist: this means
that the results or consequences of the action that count in deciding whether it‟s
right or wrong. Secondly, it holds that happiness/utility is good in itself: this means
that happiness is worth pursuing and increasing for its own sake. Another way of putting
this is to say that happiness is intrinsically, or inherently, good. Everything else is good
merely insofar as it is a means to the production of happiness, which is the
ultimate goal.

So things such as money, power, friendship, and so on are only instrumental goods
because they are ways and means of achieving happiness. Thirdly, the principle of
utility (greatest happiness principle) is the most fundamental moral principle according
to utilitarianism, and by applying it to your actions you can find out whether they
are right or wrong.

.Act Utilitarianism
Act consequentialists believe that morally right actions are those that do or are expected
to create either the absolute best outcomes or adequately good outcomes, as compared
to all other choices available for an individual at a given time. The form of act
utilitarianism is autonomous of rules, whether or not they are referred to. However, rules
might serve as a guideline but not rigidly form part of the moral action . Act
utilitarianism says that each action is assessed in terms of its possibility to produce
the greatest amount of happiness for the largest number of individuals.

Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism holds that morally right actions are those that fit with the optimal
social rules, where such rules are those that would produce the best results were
they very widely endorsed or adhered to. Rule utilitarianism is an adjusted form of
utilitarianism. It refuses hedonism (Pleasure Seeking) which says that only pleasure
is intrinsically good. Alternatively, it promotes a pluralistic perspective of values; it
accepts that many things are inherently good, including knowledge, virtue, life, pleasure,
and freedom. The rule utilitarianism perspective also suggests that we should do
what is approved by the rules with the best consequences for individuals in society
to try to follow. It claims that we will have a better life if we are guided by strict rules in
certain areas like murder or drugs. In the absence of rules, we will get involved in doing
irrational things. Rule utilitarianism claims that people follow behavioral patterns as
well as rules, and applies the approach to those rules rather than to the individual
actions. In this type of utilitarianism, we compare the utility of individuals in society by
following different potential rules rather than acting in different ways. Hence, the moral
reasoning becomes more about the design of a society governed by different rules,
practices, and institutions; and we ought to choose the rules, practices or institutions that
will produce the greater happiness, rather than about the governing of individual conduct.
The rule utilitarianism does not ignore the controlling of the individual conduct, no
moral theory did.

Yet, the governing of individual conduct is indirect through following the rules rather
than by direct calculation of the act utilitarianism form. In order to find out what is the
best action to take as an individual, one ought to know what rule it would be the best for
everyone to follow in a similar situation, then act in accordance with that particular rule.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

Deontological theories can be depicted as duty-based ethical theories. The word

“Deon” originates from the Greek word “Duty”. They focus on the nature of the
action itself and also on its motive in order to figure out if it is right or wrong. In
contrast to the situation with utilitarianism; consequences do not matter in deciding
which act is morally right; it is the rules that determine what motive to act from and
what action you should make, i.e. what your ethical duty is.

Deontological ethics “Non-consequentialism” suggests that some types of actions

such as breaking a promise or killing innocents are wrong in themselves, and
not simply wrong because they have bad consequences. Such actions might be
exceptionlessly wrong or might simply have some autonomous moral weight
against them . The notion that there are moral limitations on the pursuit of recognized
needs such as love, happiness, and peace is a classical deontological argument.
Deontology advocates believe that particular actions are intrinsically morally right or
wrong. That is, many actions possess the moral character they do by virtue of their own
nature, considered totally separated from the consequences they produce. There is
something about killing, intentional cheating, or humiliation, which makes these actions
wrong by their nature. Moreover, deontologists construct their judgments in light of
moral rights that individuals are believed to have; generally speaking, any person has a
right to be treated in ways that guarantee his dignity, respect, and independence.

The most prominent deontologist is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-
1804). The test he formulates to decide whether an act is intrinsically wrong is based on
the intellectual requirement of logical consistency. Kant claims that if we contradict
ourselves then we are inconsistent. He added, when an act is intrinsically wrong, we
will contradict ourselves if we claim it is not (Barcalow, 2007). In addition,
deontological ethics agree that the end does not justify the means. Historically, most
non-consequentialist ethics have been part of a religious worldview. In religious ethical
view, duty is often a key ethical concept; those who have religious ethical view would
claim that the ultimate source of our duties is God‟s commands. And human beings are
understood not only to have ethical duties to others but a religious duty to God. But, the
deontological theorists Kant have attempted to support a duty-centered ethic without
relying upon a religious framework. He believed that attributes like bravery,
diligence, persistence; talents such as strength, intelligence, endurance; goods
like fortune, power, and fame are all good, however, they are not good without
qualification since they can be used for evil ends. Wealth can be used to harm
people; strength and intelligence can be used to kill; bravery can be used for
burglary. All of these kinds of goods can be used for wrong ends unless if the
person has a good will. Thus, only good will can be good without qualification.
Kant says that one has a good will if one tries to do one‟s duty. But Kant emphasised that
for a will to be truly good, it must try to do its duty from a purely moral motive, rather
than from a self-interested motive. According to Kant, doing one‟s duty does not
involve gaining pleasure and happiness for oneself; it involves simply doing one‟s duty,
and sometimes that is quite difficult. Absolute duties as described by Kant might be
called “heavy-duty” duties, with ethical duties there are no ifs, ands, or buts. Kant,
like utilitarians, argued that morality can be based on one supreme moral principale,
from which all obligations and duties are derived.

It can be categotized into (1) rule deontology, and (2) act deontology.

Rule Deontology
Rule deontology argues that in all situations people ought to be guided by a set of
predetermined rules or principles, thus, the action is judged to be ethical or unethical
as compared to the rules themselves, not by the consequences of that action .
Kant formulated an ultimate moral standard, he called it “the categorical
imperative”. Yet, he sets up two distinctive foundations for this moral principle.
The first ground for this principle as demonstrated by Kant in his metaphysics of
morals (1785), goes like this: “Act only according to that maxim(slogan) by which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
This foundation explains the procedure for considering whether an action is morally
acceptable or right. When we are regarding a specific action, we ought to ask what rule
we would be following if we were to do it. Then we ought to ask whether we are willing
for that rule to be followed by everyone all the time. (This would make it a universal
law in the pertinent sense.)

In this case, and if the rule is consistent with these statements, then the rule
might be followed, and the action is morally permissible. Nonetheless, if we would
not be willing for everyone to follow that rule then the action is morally
inadmissible. This illustrates the centrality of the virtue of our rationality with
regards to the moral law. Rationality requires consistency, and it would not be
consistent to take an action based on a maxim that we would not be willing for
everyone to follow as well.

Act Deontology
According to Act Deontology, people are obligated(forced) to act toward others in
a specific way simply because they are human beings. There is a duty or responsibility
to take in account others‟ dignity and rights no matter what are the consequences so that
the focus is on the moral value embedded in the act per se.. This can be understood in
Kant‟s second foundation of the categorical imperative, which says: “Act so that you
treat humanity whether in your person or in that of another, always as an
end and never as a means only.” This implies that since we are rational beings, our
reason envisages(visualize) ends and leads us to achieve these ends through different
means. This categorical imperative formulation argues that as rational beings we are
ends in ourselves but not means for others. Consequently, we are persons, not things.
Our value is unqualified and categorical, not partial or dependent on the needs or desires
of others. Hence, according to act deontology, we have to respect others‟ dignity and
their unconditional value by always treating them as ends in themselves and
never as just means.

Kant gives an example to illustrate what does it means to consider others as ends in
themselves and never as means. For instance, let us assume that you need a certain
amount of money, in order to get that money u need to get a loan, but you know that you
are not able to repay it. So since you are desperate, you will think of giving false promise
to repay that money just to convince a friend into giving you that money. What would
you do? Maybe your intention is to use that money for good purpose, very good one,
actually, you may ponder about it and you will be convinced that lying in this case is
justified. However, if you lied to your friend, you would simply deceiving him, and
using that friend as a means to your end. This is what Kant means when he says:
“rational beings…ought to always be esteemed also as ends, that is, as beings
who must be capable of containing in themselves the end of the very same action.