Your Ethics: Deontological or Teleological?

[Psychonaut]

Deontology

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind action such as respect for rights, duties, or principles, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Teleology

Teleological ethics (Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”) is a theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. It is opposed to deontological ethics (from the Greek deon, "duty"), which holds that the basic standards for the moral rightness of an action are independent of the good or evil generated by the ethics. Modern ethics, especially since the 18th-century German deontological philosophy of Immanuel Kant, has been deeply divided between a form of teleological ethics (utilitarianism) and deontological theories.

Basically, deontological schools hold that the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action is inherent in the nature of the act itself, whereas the teleological schools hold that the consequences of the action determine its value. What position do you agree with? Most forms of monotheism adhere to a command-ethic that is firmly rooted in dentology, as do the ethical systems of absolutists such as Kant and Hegel. Teleological thinkers include Utilitarians, Machiavellians, and Pragmatists.

[Ulf]

Depends. Which is why I'll say I'm a relativist.

What if I do something that is 'good' but it has a 'bad/wrong' outcome?

Or vice versa?

Deontological: I did something right. Teleological: I did something wrong.

I lean towards teleological because the actions and outcome affect this life and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Is this analysis correct or am I just tired ranting?

[Psychonaut]

Depends. Which is why I'll say I'm a relativist.

What if I do something that is 'good' but it has a 'bad/wrong' outcome?

Or vice versa?

Deontological: I did something right. Teleological: I did something wrong.

I lean towards teleological because the actions and outcome affect this life and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Is this analysis correct or am I just tired ranting?

I think your analysis is mostly right. I'm comfortable with a teleological label myself. I don't really think that any action has inherent value, but that value is derived from the consequences. Like your example, if you do something "good" that has a negative outcome, how can you say that the action itself was "good"?

[Skandi]

moral universalism, moral relativism and moral nihilism three different standpoints that break down your opinions a little further.

Wikki article;

....moral universalism which holds that the same things are right and wrong for all similarly-situated people, regardless of anyone's opinions, though not necessarily regardless of context. Moral universalism is in turn opposed to moral relativism (which holds that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal preferences), and to moral nihilism (which holds that nothing is right or wrong in any sense at all).

I use this sort of classification and probably hold an opinion somewhere between nihilism and relativism if that is possible

[Nodens]

Old thread, but this section of the forum is near empty. I choose 'Other', as I feel the question presumes too much. Neither the intent nor the effect should necessarily be viewed solely as components of the act. To reduce them to such devalues them individually. I should say that the act itself is always neutral, while both the intent and the effect ought to be evaluated separately. Both have their significance, but the effect is often the more relevant (as it is felt longer).

Or, to play the cliche game, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Edit: I should say that the evaluation of the intent should be in term of malicious/benevolent/indifferent, and the effect in terms of advantageous/disadvantageous.

[Vargtand]

Umm, an innate feeling what is right and wrong, in that particular group and what is true to my own ideals, I'm not religious how ever.

Hard to say really... but I guess in a sense I strive to do what will make my self feel the most ... manly? silly as it might be but I have ideals and try to strive for them.

[Troll's Puzzle]

voted 'Teleological'. My favorite ethicists are Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume.

I've always found the inflexibility of absolutism leads to silly beliefs/events etc. Regarding Hegel, I've never read any of his works but feel him to be my 'least favorite' already because of the ways which some people (Marx, Fukayama, etc.) intepreted his historical absolutism (always to bad ends, and always enduringly, like a religion - especially true of marxists - the hegelian part was the worst part of marx's philosophy IMO - and even when debunked there was still a hard core who felt it communism was a historical inevitability). Likewise Kant, whose absolutism lead him to conclusions which obviously feel wrong, eg. on babies born out of wedlock:

Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth … A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law … and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation

another Kant quote: 'Let justice be done, though the world perish' - hell no, I'd rather get relatavistic and save my bacon

[Piparskeggr]

I try to do what is right; that which helps my kin, kith and community.

Otherwise, my "ethic" is bound by the circumstance of the individual situation.

[Absinthe]

Mixed feelings about this, but since human beings are *supposed* to be sentient & intelligent beings and not stimulus-response machines, I generally incline towards deontological ethics.

That been said, I take a person's motives into serious account because the outcome of an action alone does not suffice.

E.g. killing someone by accident does not hold the same moral gravity as premeditated murder.

[SwordoftheVistula]

If someone is 'Deontologically right' but 'Teleologically wrong', could he/she not at least be assumed to have poor judgment and lack of adequate reasoning facilities regarding cause and effect?