01 Explain the key differences between deontological and teleological
approaches to ethics. Refer to Kant’s theory of ethics in your answer (30
marks) Taken from June 2009 exam paper
PLAN
Paragraph #1 definitions
Paragraph # 2 The way in which rules are formulated (i.e. categorical imperatives vs hypothetical
imperatives)
Paragraph #3 absolutism vs relativism (fixed rules that apply in all circumstances)
Paragraph #4 a priori vs a posteriori (reason vs experience)
Paragraph #5 happiness (summum bonum) the reward but not the goal (ran out of time)
Link all points to Kant.
Use example: Osama bin Laden’s death.
The word deontology comes from the Greek deon meaning duty or obligation. A deontological approach to
ethics is one that states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is decided by whether it is in
accordance with our duty or obligation, or adheres to preset rules based on duty or obligation. In Kant’s
deontological theory of ethics a system of rules called the categorical imperative must be used to decide
whether an action is in accordance with one’s duty. By contrast, a teleological approach to ethics states that
the rightness or wrongness of an action is decided by whether that action helps us to move towards some
goal or end. It comes from the Greek word telos, meaning goal, end or purpose. Utilitarianism is an example
of a goal-orientated theory. The telos of utilitarianism is to produce the actions that are the most useful.
Both systems may involve rules so it is too simplistic to say one involves rules and the other doesn’t.
However, the way in which the two approaches formulate rules are very different. In Kant’s ethical system,
rules are formulated in accordance with duty. We formulate a maxim (a statement that expresses our
intention), such as “I will kill” and then apply the categorical imperative to it in order to establish whether
the maxim is moral or not (i.e. whether it is our duty to act on it or not). The categorical imperative has 3
formulations. For example, the 1st asks us to consider whether we would will for that maxim to be a
universal law, i.e. a law that would apply to all people without exception. In the example of the recent
killing of Osama bin Laden, using Kant’s theory, we could not universalise this killing. Despite the generally
held belief that killing him somehow places us in a position of improved safety, we are now creating a
situation in which killing becomes a morally acceptable code of conduct, surely resulting in a reduced
position of safety. The 2nd formulation asks us to treat all humanity never just as a means to an end but also
always as an end in themselves. Killing Osama bin Laden is merely using him as a means to an end (i.e. to
protect others) and would therefore not be permissible under the categorical imperative. For Kant, despite
bin Laden’s terrorist actions, he retains his intrinsic worth as a rational being and this must be respected,
irrespective of his own actions. Therefore the maxim “I will not kill” becomes a categorical imperative, that
is, an action that must be acted on because it is the right thing to do. The consequences of not killing bin
Laden are not taken into account.
By contrast, a teleologist such as a Utilitarian comes at the killing of Osama bin Laden from a different angle.
Here, the focus is on whether his death somehow moves us all forward towards our goal, i.e. whether the
action is useful. For hedonistic utilitarians the usefulness of an action is decided by whether it produces the
most possible happiness for the most possible amount of people. In this account, Osama bin Laden has no
intrinsic value. If killing bin Laden produces the best consequences, then it is the right thing to do. In Rule
Utilitarianism the rule “Kill infamous terrorist leaders” could easily be adopted, if justified by a predicted
positive outcome. So, as you can see, both approaches could involve rules; however, deontologists establish
rules based on which actions are right or wrong in themselves, whilst a teleological approach looks at the
predicted consequences or actual consequences of an action to decide whether a rule based on that action
would be a useful thing or not.
In summary, Utilitarians use hypothetical imperatives “I will do x to get y” in order to decide on rules to
follow or to decide which individual actions should be acted on. Deontologists, such as Kant, use categorical
imperatives “I will do x because x is the right thing to do”. This is one key difference between deontological
and teleological approaches to ethics.
A further difference is that deontological approaches tend to be absolutist in nature. This means that the
duties or obligations, once established, are considered morally binding in all similar situations. They are
classed as “moral absolutes”: rules that are fixed for all people in all situations. This is why killing Osama bin
Laden cannot be considered morally acceptable under Kant’s deontological theory, as it would mean that
killing a man would be morally acceptable without exception. Teleological approaches, however, tend to be
relativist in nature. This means that the rightness or wrongness of the action is relative to the situation at
hand. Killing a man, i.e. bin Laden, may be acceptable in this particular set of circumstances, but perhaps not
in another set of circumstances.
Another difference is the role of reason. Whilst both approaches use reason, deontological approaches are
often a priori, i.e. they approach moral truths from reasoning alone. A priori literally translates as “before
experience”. From a Kantian perspective it would be argued that providing you understand the concept of
“killing” it is possible to ascertain whether killing bin Laden is right or wrong without knowing anything about
him. However, from a teleological perspective, the rightness or wrongness of killing bin Laden could only be
decided by whether the action moved us closer to our desired goal. Clearly only experience can enable the
decision maker to work out whether this has been achieved. It would involve some knowledge of the victim
(gained through experiencing his actions in the world) and some knowledge of the consequences of killing
him. In this way, whilst deontological theories are a priori, teleological approaches tend to be a posteriori;
moral truths can only be known “after experience”, i.e. after experiencing the effects of our actions.
In short, deontological theories such as Kant’s tend to use categorical imperatives (morally binding
obligations) whilst teleological theories such as Utilitarianism tend to use hypothetical imperatives (goal
orientated codes of conduct). In addition, deontological theories are often absolutist in nature, i.e. they
involve fixed rules or principles that operate as an obligation without exception, whilst teleological theories
tend to promote actions as and when they produce the best outcomes in those situations. Furthermore,
deontological theories tend to be a priori in nature, utilising reason to ascertain moral truths, unlike
teleological theories, which consult experience to ascertain the rightness or wrongness of an action. Perhaps
the single most prominent feature of both, hopefully as illustrated here in the example of Osama bin Laden’s
death, is that Kant’s deontological approach always ignores the predicted or actual outcomes of our actions.
However, a teleological approach such as Utilitarianism hinges entirely on whether the outcomes of our
actions are favourable (i.e. whether they meet a goal, end or purpose, as defined by the theory itself).