Deontology or Teleology:
Ethics Based on Duty or on Consequences

In Journalism Ethics, Merrill offers several different ways to categorize or think about ethics. To summarize:

Direct or indirect view of ethics: Asks what ethics are all about. What should be the focus of a consideration of ethics?

* Direct: Ethics is about the action taken. To determine what ethical behavior is, we should assess the act -- what has been done.

The key questions here are: "What should I do? What action should I take?"

Exemplars: Kant, Mill

* Indirect: Ethics is about the actor -- the nature of the individual choosing those actions. The main concern here is the formation of character by a moral agent (a person).

The key questions here are: "What kind of person should I be? What kind of character should I work to develop? How should I choose to live my life?"

Exemplar: Aristotle

Pragmatic or humanist ethical theories: Considers the motivations for action.

* Pragmatic ethics: Emphasis is on achieving success, on reaching a goal ... potentially, with relatively little concern for how that success is achieved.

For pragmatists, the end (which itself may be altruistic and socially beneficial, such as informing the public) usually justifies the means.

Exemplar: Machiavelli

* Humanistic ethics: Emphasis is on doing what's best for society.

Humanistic ethics, which overwhelmingly dominate ethical theory, are more unequivocally altruistic. The goals of ethics here are virtue and social improvement rather than personal success.

Exemplars: Just about everyone else

Just to muddy the waters even more ... humanistic ethics come in at least three flavors:

* Deontological or duty-based ethics: The path to ethics lies in following a set of guidelines or rules.

The ethical person identifies a duty or set of duties (for instance, the duty to tell the truth) and abides by it.

Exemplar: Kant

* Teleological or consequence-based ethics: The results or outcomes of decisions and acts determine what is ethical.

In general, what is ethical is the action most likely to result in the most or the most significant good -- the best likely consequence.

Exemplar: Mill

* Personalist ethics: Ethical decisions stem from conscience, from a personal sense of morality that pushes us toward a particular ethical action.

This is a more subjective approach than the other two.

Exemplars: Existentialists (Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, others)

Immanuel Kant

Kant was an 18th century German Enlightenment philosopher. A deontologist, he is best known for his Categorical Imperative.

* Being ethical involves identifying your duty ... and following it.

You do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. (This is the "imperative" part.)

* The ethical duty is one you would want everyone to follow -- all the time, in every circumstance, with no exceptions and (at least to some extent) regardless of the consequences. (This is the "categorical" part.)

* The ethical duty also is one that values humans for themselves, never as a means to an end. (So Kant is a humanist, not a pragmatist.)
* Kant would say that journalists deserve no special privileges regarding our behavior. We should be held to the same standards that we apply to people we cover.

Sir William David Ross

Ross was a 20th century British deontologist philosopher who said that we have multiple duties. Ethical behavior involves finding the right balance between (and often choosing among) these duties in a given situation.

* We are not one-dimensional, nor do we live in a one-dimensional world. We have many duties, some competing.

* Duties are of several types, such as fidelity, gratitude and justice. Ross is rare in his recognition of the duty of beneficence, a duty to provide nurturance.

* Some duties are right because of their very nature (such as the duty to tell the truth); these are called prima facie duties. Others are right in particular circumstances, called duty proper.
* Duties can be ranked. The most important is to do no harm. Close behind is to do good.

Aristotle

Aristotle was a 4th century B.C.E. Greek philosopher. He is best known for his concept of "virtue ethics" and for the idea of the golden mean.

* Although some actions are always wrong (murder, for instance), in most cases, ethical behavior lies between extremes, along a range between excess and deficiency.

This is the idea of the golden mean.

* Your goal is to develop ethical character, to become a "phrenemos" (a person of practical wisdom).

You must develop the habit of choosing wisely, avoiding extremes and thus achieving happiness. This rational achievement of personal happiness benefits both you and others.

* Character rests not in obedience to duty but in an individual who makes choices.

This point and the last one underlie the basic idea of virtue ethics. Ethics results from becoming a virtuous individual, through the practice of repeatedly making good decisions until doing so becomes a habit.

(So Aristotle, unlike the other folks on this page, takes the indirect view of ethics.)
* The outcome, or consequences, of our choices matter to Aristotle, at least more than to Kant or Ross. (So Aristotle leans toward teleological ethics.)

John Stuart Mill

Mill is the best-known of the 19th century British utilitarians. He is a teleologist, placing the emphasis on a consideration of what happens when you do something.

* The consequences of an action are the primary way to determine how ethical that action is.

The most ethical act is the one that brings the greatest happiness, or good, to the greatest number of people. This is the principle of utilitarianism.

* Mill also gives us the idea of social ethics.

Individual happiness is trivial. Decisions must be based on a judgment of what will maximize happiness for as many people as possible.

* Utilitarianism takes two forms:

* Act utilitarianism deals with a specific act only (situational ethics).

* Rule utilitarianism deals with general practices (for which rules can be established).