A Deontological Ethical System Is The Only One Which Is Defensible

1265 Words6 Pages
The issue here is whether a deontological ethical system is the only one which is defensible, i.e. whether it can be defended and accepted philosophically when teleology cannot. This statement is claiming that it is, at the same time implying that teleology is not a defensible ethical system. People may agree with this, as one reason that philosophers might give for saying that a deontological ethical system is the only one that is defensible is because although humans are motivated by their happiness, the problem with this is that it can seem selfish to only think of ones own happiness and it could be argued that being moral involves more than happiness, and more satisfaction can be gained long term from doing something moral than doing something for your own happiness. However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness. People may say that it can be hard to keep to deontological ethics when we cannot see how they will immediately benefit us, making teleology much more appealing. In my opinion deontology can be defended because deontologists do not judge actions by their consequences, this is a positive aspect of deontology because it does not allow people to do bad things to secure good consequences, if we really consider human happiness, at first it sounds appealing and simple. However, if all actions were done to secure human happiness then many evil deeds would be permitted, for example it may secure a psychopath with maximum happiness if he can rape and murder women and children. Therefore teleology would permit this as it would maximise the psychopaths happiness. Teleologists say
Open Document