Teleology vs Divine Command Theory

Teleology talks about

Divine command theory

 The belief that what’s moral, and what’s immoral – is commanded by the divine.
 It solves the grounding problem. Every ethical system needs some kind of foundation, and with
the divine theory, it’s God.
 Addressesmany of our biggest questions about right and wrong, which is why it’s the ethical
theory of choice for much of the world.

Categorical Imperative theory

 In order to determine what’s right, you have to do reason and sense of consideration for other
people
 He knew that if were going to look into religion for morality, we’re not going to get some answer
 Morality is constant
 Most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice – instead,
it’s just contingent on our desires.
 Ex: if your desire is to get money, get a job. If your desire to have grade A in class then you’re
ought to study.
 Hypothetical imperatives – commands that you should follow if u want something; it’s about
prudence rather than morality. So if u don’t want money, you can choose not to work. And if u
don’t care about getting good grades, studying becomes iptional
 Categorical imperatives – commands you must follow regardless of your desires. Moral
obligations are derived purely from reason.
 It doesn’t matter if u want to be moral or not because the moral law is binding on all of us
 You don’t need religion to determine what that law is, because what’s right and wrong is totally
knowable just by using your intellect.
 Formulation 1: universalizability principle – act only accordingly to that maxim which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
 Maxim – a rule or principle of action. Universal law – something that must be done in similar
situations.
 The one thing you are never permitted to do so is violate the moral law, even if others are doing
so, even for a really good cause.
 Formulation 2: formulation of humanity – act so that you treat humanity whether in your own
person or in that of another, always as end, and never as a mere means
 Mere means – use it for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of thing
you’re using
 Ends-in-ourselves: we are not mere objects that exist to be used by others. We are our own
ends. We’re rational and autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals, and work
toward them
 We don’t deserve to be used as mere means because of our autonomy. We’re self-governed.
We’re able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills,

DEONTOLOGY

Generally, a theory of moral obligation that

claims that the rightness or wrongness of human actions must

be determined with reference to characteristics of those actions

other than simply the goodness or badness of their predicted

consequences. In this sense, deontology has been seen as a

theoretical counterpoint to consequentialism and utilitarianism.

One very ancient form of deontology, divine command

theory, holds that moral rightness and wrongness can be identified

and measured only by the will of the divine (and that

the divine will has been sufficiently revealed to human consciousness

to make correct moral choice possible, through

obedience to divine command). Another well-known deontology,

that of Immanuel Kant, holds that all moral obligations

can be derived from a single ultimate moral norm, the

“categorical imperative.” Of Kant’s several expressions of the

maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should

become a universal law.” His second formulation, often cited

in discussions of the ethics of medical experimentation, was

that one must “act so that you treat humanity . . . always as

an end and never as a means only.” Kant believed that we

should always act not only in accordance with but also for

the sake of rationally perceived moral obligation, and that

our particular moral obligations are defined by moral rules

that are in turn derived from the categorical imperative. (See

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans.

H. J. Paton [New York: Harper and Row, 1964].) One other

notable form of deontology is that of the twentieth-century

British philosopher W. D. Ross, who claimed that our recognition

of basic moral obligations emerges from our experience

of various social structures and relationships. Furthermore,

in contrast to Kant, Ross held that these obligations

are fundamentally plural rather than emerging from a single

categorical imperative, and that they can and do conflict with one another in a variety of circumstances.
Thus, he claimed,

we must understand these basic moral obligations not as absolute

duties but rather as prima facie duties—that is, as obligations

generally to be fulfilled but which may need to be

overridden by another stronger or more pressing prima facie

duty in situations of conflict of duties. (See W. D. Ross, The

Right and the Good [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930].) Most

take the form of “rule deontology,” meaning that our fundamental

moral obligations are expressed in moral rules that

are consistently applicable. A much rarer form, “act deontology,”

would hold that our moral obligations must somehow

be discerned in the moment of moral choice—an approach

in which consistency, predictability, and rational analysis of

moral choice would be difficult at best.

TELEOLOGY