HSS 4107 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Teleology, Arson, Deontological Ethics
19 Sep 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Lecture 2
September 12th
Deontology (principle-based ethics)
• How should we live the “good life”
• Tend to believe in absolute rights and wrongs
o Some behaviour are life affirming while others are the opposite.
Example murder, arson, terrorism and other self evidently wrong
behaviours
o Absolute decision between right and wrong
• Do not want to get into “calculus”
o Do not weigh pros and cons on self evident actions
o No need for further debate or discussion
• Often called principle based ethicists
• Associated with sanctity of life
• Comes from the word deon – the greek word for duty
o You have a duty to follow what is right and avoided acts of wrong
o The “good” refers to the outcome
• The right
o Prior to the good, or any outcome for that matter
o Whether something is right or wrong is decided with no concern for
the possible outcomes
o Has nothing to do with the outcome
• Deontological constraints
o Put into law to restrict self evident behaviours life murder and rape
o Somethings have a grey area such as abortion causing wavering in
their stance such as Rick Santorum on abortion vs capital punishment
• Faults
o By imposing an absolute position of any kind may prolong suffering
o Tend to by hypocritical as they claim to never relativize their stances
by wiggling around the doctrine. They may claim that god command
to “not kill” referred to innocent people and not criminals. Secondly, a
distinction between intend and foresee, example not intended to kill
children while bombing village in Iraq
o Guilty of arbitrary moral distinctions
Teleology (consequentialism)
• Opposite of a deontologist
• Want to know to outcome before making decision on right or wrong
• The outcome defines whether something is right or wrong
• Right or wrong – is dependent on the “good” or bad outcome
Document Summary
Deontology (principle-based ethics: some behaviour are life affirming while others are the opposite. They may claim that god command to (cid:498)not kill(cid:499) referred to innocent people and not criminals. Secondly, a distinction between intend and foresee, example not intended to kill children while bombing village in iraq: guilty of arbitrary moral distinctions. In 2013 canada voted 9-0 in favour of decriminalizing the act and make it safer based on the outcomes views: the law forced women to work outdoors in dangerous areas putting them at risk. Minimal consequentialism: acts are judged by what the intentions of the act are, acts are also judged by what outcomes you should have foreseen, can"t drive home drunk and claim you didn"t intend to hurt anyone. You should have foreseen the risks and thus you are responsible for your actions despite them not being your intentions: moves in flow with deontology, when something becomes weak with deontology we use consequentialism to adjust the standard.
