Deontological Ethics:
This approach is also known as duty-based/ action based approach. This is a Greek word ‘Deon=obligation, duty’ and logy. The term deontological was first used in 1930, in C.D Broad’s book, “Five types of Ethical Theory”.
This approach mainly focuses on duty or actions but least considered about the consequences or results unlike the utilitarianism. This approach is contrasted to the consequentialism (i.e, teleological approach). Some moral absolutists deontologists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what consequences follows form them. Example- Immanuel Kant. This theory (i.e., Kant’s theory of deontological approach) looks at the input rather than the outcomes. This theory examines the nature of actions (whether the action is right or wrong) and will of agents and judges the morality rather than focusing on the goals achieved. The main reason of it being action oriented is that it holds a philosophical belief that says “future are beyond our control” despite our hard work. We owe appraisal because of our deeds, not our achievements.
Indeed, this does not mean that Kant did not care about the outcomes of our actions rather he insisted that as far as the moral evaluation of our action was concerned, consequences did not matter. For instance, when a doctor treats his patients, he should have knowledge about the result of that treatment, in order to determine what would and would not benefit the patient. But the consequence is not what makes the act right as is the case with the utilitarianism. “Consequences help us find what our duty is; they are not what make something our duty”. If action is wrong, the whole thing is considered to be immoral. Like in case of wars between Nazis and Jews, we can say, the principle can be applied. In this case, you would be considered to be immoral if you lied to Nazis about where Jews were hiding. Thus, the moral absolutist deontologist Kant argues that if an action is performed at a bad maxim (e.g. I will lie) although it results to some good changes, the action is considered to be wrong. But according to Ross, if a lie brings some good, then it is considered the right thing to do.
Teleological Ethics:
This is a kind of ethics approach where actions are judged morally right based upon their consequences. This ethics theory discussed that in order to make correct moral choices; we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices. The word teleology comes from Greek ‘telos’=end, purpose. Teleological ethics is a counter approach to the deontological ethics. One example of teleological ethics is ‘utilitarianism’. It states those actions right that produces the greatest number of happiness to the greatest number of people. In this approach, an end justifies the means. A thing, process or action is teleological when it is for the sake of final cause (end). There are two types of final cause- intrinsic and extrinsic finality. The two major influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Under this ethical approach, morality is judged by the outcome as to what kind of outcome has driven the means. This approach follows an absolute distinction between right and wrong. Suppose, a stealing act, the rightness or wrongness of this act is solely a matter of the overall non-moral good (e.g. pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge or satisfaction of an individual desire) produced in the result of doing that act.
Situational Ethics:
This theory was first postulated during the 1960s by Joseph Fletcher. It is considered to be the Christian ethical theory. In situational approach, ‘ends can justify the means’. There are no ethical standards that can be uniformly or consistently applied, for each situation demands for its own standard of ethics. Under this ethics you may commit something for sake of love or in love and in no-intension of hurting somebody rather caring about them and their sensitivity. There are people who say, a lie is a lie no matter what consequences follow them and there are some who say, a lie is never a lie if it does follow some good consequences. But the whole matter lies within what kind of situation is followed by these actions and results. Suppose the situation goes like this: a man is running away from a group of people who are about to kill him, a chaser comes and asks you about the man trying to escape and I personally think about this from the side of humanity that I ought to save him from that group of men who are trying to kill him because I certainly know the consequence that he will get killed, so I lie. And according to this ethical approach, it is no harm to view a situation (even if that may lead to bad results) from the eyes of humanity. This approach says that actions aren’t considered bad and harmful until and unless it is performed with a wrong intension. If a motive drives you to cause harm to somebody, that motive is utterly unethical. In a nutshell, it’s no harm to steal something if the intention is to feed a starving child.
References:
• Linsley, A. (2008). Deontological Approach to Ethics. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2008/04/deontological-approach-to-ethics.html
• Alexander, L., Moore, M. (2007). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved May 26, 2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
• Deontological, Teleological and Virtue Ethics (2011). Types of Ethical Systems. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq
• Wikipedia (2011). Situational Ethics. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
• http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~kbculver/coursesites/j411/notes/2_4_ethics.pdf
