a) Explain the differences between deontological and teleological approaches to ethical decision making. June 2012 Q4 (25 marks)

In this series of articles I take the available evidence on a past question (Mark scheme and Examiners' reports) and make some further comments. Students could use these to help plan their answers or do peer-group marking. Questions and text © OCR Examinations Board.

Indicative content

This is a general question and a variety of approaches may be used. Candidates may refer to ethical theories (but this is not necessary) which could be considered deontological or teleological, or they may give examples of the different approaches.

Candidates may begin by explaining that deontological approaches to ethical decision making look at whether the action itself is right or wrong, whilst teleological approaches consider
the consequences of an action.

They may explain that deontological theories are often more absolute and take account of motives and intentions, whereas teleological theories may be more relative and consider outcomes and purpose.

Candidates may use examples of deontological approaches to ethics such as Kantian ethics or Divine Command theory.
Candidates may use examples such as lying or killing.
Candidates may use Utilitarianism as an example of teleological ethics and explain how actions are judged good by bringing the best consequences to all.

Some candidates may consider that some ethical approaches have elements of both deontology and teleology such as Natural Law and the prima facie duties of W. D. Ross.

Marking Guidance

Candidates must explain the differences between deontological and teleological approaches and not just outline. The differences might be explained in the beginning and concluding paragraph with examples in between, and this should be credited.

Most answers consider Utilitarianism, Kant or Natural Law and use examples. Candidates might introduce other relevant ethical theories such as Situation Ethics and even Virtue Ethics. (PB – Virtue Ethics is in the A2 syllabus so you’d have to be fairly widely read to include this!).

Many candidates will link teleological approaches to relativism and deontological approaches to absolutism and this should not be discounted. (PB – this comment really begs all the questions as the good textbook will make absolutely clear that the terms are not synonymous – they quite simply cannot be translated one into the other. If you don’t understand this, go to my article on the Puzzle of Relativism).

Some candidates might distinguish that relativism and absolutism are not exclusively linked to teleology and deontology such as Natural Law. (PB – quite so, see my above comment. To make this point effectively is quite a sophisticated argument, perhaps one for classroom discussion).

b) ‘The ends justify the means’ Discuss (10 marks)

Candidates may agree with this statement as long as a good result is obtained. (PB – as in utilitarian consequentialism where results or consequences are determined and then the happiness or misery caused is assessed. Where the net effect is more happiness over misery the action is deemed ‘good’).

Candidates may also argue that we cannot predict the consequences of our actions. They may say that personal responsibility for our actions (PB – slightly ambiguous idea this as a consequentialist doesn’t necessarily argue he or she is not prepared to take responsibility for the decision.The examiner, or the candidate, would be better to have mentioned motive here – as Kant argues that the only good is the good will – meaning a motive of duty rather than pleasure or desire). is more important and there is no way that the ends justify the means as we cannot be sure of achieving those ends.

They may say that the statement allows bad actions e.g. torture, so long as the right result is obtained. They might show that the probability of obtaining this result would need to be considered. 

They may also argue that it is only natural to consider the consequences when making ethical decisions. They may say that the actions themselves are ethically neutral and can only be judged on the results they achieve. This may mean that the end justifies the means so that teleological ethics may give good results even if the means are not so good – e.g. killing a tyrant to free a people from his despotic rule.

Examiners’ comments

(a) In general this question was answered well with most candidates able to differentiate between deontological and teleological approaches. (PB – telos – end, deon – duty).

The majority of candidates approached this question by explaining what the terms meant then going on to explain the theories which may be considered deontological or teleological, and highlighting the differences in the final paragraph. Most candidates discussed Kant as being deontological and this was done well with good examples, often the axe murderer, abortion or euthanasia (PB – note now the examiner likes examples, but why not use your own from a film or book or real life?) . Some candidates also showed a detailed knowledge of Natural Law in both its deontological and teleological aspects. (PB – candidates often say ‘natural law is deontological’ whilst failing to say that it arises from the teleological Greek worldview that sees everything as having a proper purpose, and the proper purposes of human beings, said Aristotle, is to reason excellently).

Utilitarianism was used to explain a teleological theory. Candidates often used the same examples to show how a teleological theory would make a different ethical decision. Weaker candidates outlined the theories but did not explain the differences, or only focused on the key differences of consequences versus action/intention.

(b) A small number of candidates were confused over what was meant by the question, some candidates arguing that the view expressed a Kantian perspective (PB – this is because the second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states ‘don’t just treat people as a means to an end but always, also an end in themselves’). The majority of candidates gave an argument in support of a teleological view and opposing this with a deontological view. Many argued that it seemed like a logical approach to decision making and used the example of killing Hitler as the means justifying the ends

(PB – this is because to a utilitarian teleologist, the end of the greatest happiness minus misery is what makes an action good, so that the pain caused to Hitler from being assassinated as the Stauffenberg plot of 1944 intended is vastly outweighed by the many people, Jewish victims and allied and German soldiers, whose lives would have been saved).