|Date published:||04 Sep 2018|
Various ethical theories can be regarded as teleological in nature in that whatever is right or wrong is dependent on a certain action or outcome. On the other hand, some theories can be deontological in that the act of doing the right or the wrong thing is solely dependent on following the set rules and undertaking a specific activity. In my thought, regardless of the fact that teleological theories can be classified under relativist while deontological as absolutist, it is not often easy given the fact that ethics mostly involves uneasy mix up. As Kant argued, individuals have to act in accordance to the dictum that they would perceive as universal laws (Hill 44). I believe that the laws are absolutist in the sense that individuals can practice them in a logical manner prior to any kind of experience given the fact that their experience does not verify them. Additionally, it is worth noting that the cost of every action is often irrelevant to whether the acts are wrong or right as I believe that often, immoral actions at times have unintentional moral consequences as evidenced in people acting bravely without having any form of assurance that cost may turn out to be admirable. By considering the character of humans, it is evident that there is not a single character that has good qualities without some immunity. For instance, despite the fact that one can act in a sympathetic manner, he/she is still capable of doing immoral acts. Thus, one can argue that good will is the only good thing that should be deemed as the right thing.
In my opinion, the nature of morality is under deontological since it invents some rules that have to be followed. In essence, the rules are absolutist due to the fact that they do not recognize exception. For instance, when people rely on family planning techniques, they tend to ignore God’s purpose of getting intimate. Nevertheless, the act is good as it ensures one’s healthy by for instance preventing diseases and unwanted pregnancies. In the same way, non-consequentialist is under deontological as it embraces some deontological consent. The fact that non-consequentialist do not deny that consequences are morally significant and still believe that some factors are also important in morally assessing actions implies that the most rationally clear understanding of deontological denotes non- consequentialist thereby implying that deontological theories includes all the views of non-consequentialist. Consequentialism on the other hand is very different from deontological since deontological often derives the wrong or rightness of the conduct of individuals from the portrayed character as opposed to product of the conduct. I believe that regardless of the fact that both deontological and consequentialism are theories on morals and ethics, their main difference lies in the what they both perceive an action as being either right or wrong. According to Holland (19), in consequentialism, the moral value of an action is not determined by the nature of the action but rather the reference to the consequence while in deontology, actions can be right or wrong due to their nature.
While both relativism and absolutism are central concepts in ethics, it is accurate to argue that they interrelate as opposed to existing independently of each other. This can be evidenced by the fact that the sanctity of human life is regarded as an absolute value in that its application is in practice relative to specific circumstances for instance self-defense and war. There is a noticeable problem in the application of absolutism and relativism in that extreme absolutism may create difficulties in ethical practices while extreme relativism may make it impossible to have ethical debates. In regards to absolutism, I have no reason of presuming that deontology entails absolutism. In my view, absolutism is right by claiming that ethics are not supposed to be relative in that I believe that rationality is important for every individual seeking prosperous and endurance regardless of the era or culture. I strongly agree with people who believe that emotional moral decision and principles are important elements of practicing moral living standards. As Clarke (108) affirms, in reference to ethical theory, relativism is linked to consequentialism while absolutism is linked to deontology.
As Kant affirmed, freedom is the inner worth of the world where he affirmed that the value of freedom can be realized by its constant use (Wiley 559). The fact that consequentialist theories may seem incapable of justifying freedom ponders the question whether deontological theories are equipped better. I am sure that a teleological account of freedom in accordance with actual practices of determining freedom can help in solving the puzzle. In my thoughts, the main difficulty presented by the freedom theory is that at cogent, it is not only too narrow bus also too extreme. In the past, teleology was interpreted to denote the purpose as well as the vague concept of some final causes. Thus, considering the fact that determinism is a thesis regarding some causal history of events, when we perceive it on a teleological account of free will, it is evident that agency is not importantly a casual notion and thus there is no room for obvious ways where determinism is made relevant. The concept of final cause according to Chrisley and Begeer (377) is what led to the opposition of teleology to determinism.
Some theories can be classified under both teleological and absolutist. For instance, virtue ethics that specifies the virtues that human ought to acquire through not only habit but also education to enjoy a happier lifestyle can be deemed as either absolutist and teleological. In my judgment, the theory is teleological owing to the fact that it relates to the rationales and ends of the actions. Similarly, one can perceive these rationales as absolute in that possessing moral characters such as being sympathetic and honest is always good (Harris 365). I also tend to agree with virtue ethicists who argue that human values are prone to changes and cultures often hold very different virtues. For instance, as Harris (365) reveals, the issue of how as well as the extent by which virtues are comparative to different historical, social and cultural contexts is very important in the sense that if virtues are tied for practices, the issue of the exact practices engaged by a specific individual has to be sorted out. Different cultures and people engage in different practices in different times, a phenomenon that reveals that the practices of different people reflect their stories in different parts.
From the above analysis, it is evident that the application of ethics is not only a matter of practicing ethical principles in different situations, rather it is important for individuals to always be open to any possibilities presented by different theories and thus the reason as to why we should not apply ethical theories blindly while relying on the projected outcome. I have understood that ethical theories often functions as tools in the discovery of ethical aspects of different situations. For instance, the application of consequentialism theory can be good in exploring the cost of a particular action. It is also evident that theories are capable of suggesting specific reasons and arguments that have an important role in ethical decisions.