Teleological ethics
Teleological ethics is a philosophical framework that evaluates the moral rightness of actions based on their outcomes or consequences, rather than the intentions behind them or the morality of the actions themselves. Rooted in the Greek term "telos," meaning "goal," this approach is part of a broader philosophy known as consequentialism, which emphasizes the importance of end results. Historically, teleological ethics has its origins in the works of ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, who linked virtuous behavior with achieving the highest good—often defined as happiness.
The development of teleological ethics gained momentum during the Enlightenment, particularly with figures like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who formulated utilitarianism, a principle assessing moral actions by their ability to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Over the centuries, various subcategories of consequentialism emerged, addressing different aspects of outcomes, such as rule consequentialism and negative consequentialism.
Despite its practical applications, teleological ethics faces criticism, particularly concerning the potential moral implications of prioritizing outcomes over methods. Critics argue that good outcomes may not justify actions taken in morally questionable ways. Nonetheless, teleological ethics remains influential in modern discussions of ethics, impacting fields like business and medical ethics, and adapting to complex ethical challenges in contemporary society.
On this Page
Teleological ethics
Teleological ethics is the philosophical investigation of behavior where the moral rightness of an action is determined on the basis of its outcome. It is concerned neither with the morality of the choices leading to that result nor the morality of the person performing the action. The approach stipulates that outcomes alone make it possible to distinguish the good from the less good. Teleological ethics (from the ancient Greek telos, meaning "goal" or "objective") forms part of the broader philosophy of consequentialism, embracing various schools of thought prioritizing ends over means. Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle (fourth century BCE), originated forms of consequentialist morality, although, in its definitive expressions, such as utilitarianism, teleological ethics is a product of the eighteenth century. As a workable philosophy applicable to a range of everyday, practical situations, it continues to generate insightful solutions to the age-old question of how best to act for the good.
Background
In response to the question of whether ends can justify means, teleological theories reply in the affirmative. Focused on the end products of action, teleological ethics traditionally argues against deontology—the contrary belief that moral qualities are inherent in people or actions. This distinction is the source of both its historical importance and its controversial status. Aristotle's foundational analysis of virtue—in works such as the Eudemian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics—concluded that virtuous behavior leads to the highest forms of good: outcomes defined by happiness or well-being. As such, it had a teleological shape. The insistence on the antecedent process of virtuous conduct, however, which later Greek philosophers inherited from Aristotle, opened the door to a more radical approach in which positive consequences alone were the determinants of rightness.
The ends/means question became prominent during the European Renaissance (fourteenth–sixteenth centuries). The Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli maintained, in his inflammatory treatise (1513), that what is right must coincide with what solves a specific problem. Morality is not an abstract, fixed concept; it changes with circumstances. As a proposed philosophy of life, implicating institutions such as the church, government, and law, alongside private and domestic matters, teleological morality emerged as a major force in the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In his Leviathan (1651), British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that since self-interest was the prime motivation of all human behavior, only voluntary submission to a supreme governing authority could provide the most desirable outcome of nationwide social stability, regardless of other ethical concerns. Enlightenment-era philosophers, such as the Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713) and Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746), developed an ethics of benevolence whereby morality was measured in terms of what would benefit the population at large. On this basis, the British legal thinker Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) constructed the concept of utilitarianism. This is a constellation of theories that equate rightness with the greatest good as applied to the greatest number of people (formulaically worded as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number": a phrase first found in Hutcheson). In this form, teleological ethics found its clearest and most influential expression.
Impact
Bentham's rejection of absolutist morality entailed the denial of natural law due to lack of agreement on what it was and natural rights because he believed they were a meaningless abstraction. His assessment of the worth of ethical judgments consisted wholly in the calibration of consequences. John Stuart Mill (1806–73) refined the utilitarian priority of aggregated happiness, understood by Bentham as maximized pleasure and minimized pain. Mill introduced a hierarchy of happiness, whose superior forms were defined as those to which a majority could commit without compromising their dignity. He also acknowledged that expediency, justice, and morality may not always coincide; as a rule, however, expediency must prevail. British philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) similarly recognized that although the furtherance of one's own interests (egoism) and those of others (altruism) may sometimes conflict, there was typically an overlap sufficient to justify the utilitarian promotion of happiness as a goal.
From the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries, teleological expressions of ethical thought grew in sophistication. During that time, various subcategories of consequentialism—the main application of teleological ethics—emerged as modifications of the main principle. Among them, rule consequentialism concedes that while outcomes determine rightness, some basic codes of conduct (or rules) are likelier to produce those outcomes. Motive consequentialism requires evaluation of potential outcomes, with the selection of the most promising as the prime motive of good conduct. Negative consequentialism attempts to avoid negative outcomes more urgently than it seeks positive outcomes, thereby minimizing risk.
The teleological approach has never been free from criticism. From a practical perspective, it may be argued that quantitative benefit does not imply qualitative benefit. American philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) claimed that an omniscient ideal observer would be needed to predict outcomes accurately. From a moral perspective, the main accusation is that a good outcome would be negated or compromised if the method of attaining it was not good. In answer, the ideal utilitarianism of the pluralist G. E. Moore (1873–1958) held that outcomes could be composites of many goals, including adherence to virtuous conduct. Critics such as the British philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe (1919–2001; inventor of the term consequentialism), Bernard Williams (1929–2003), and Philippa Foot (1920–2010) objected that describing the content of outcomes as good, in the absence of a good context, was morally vacuous. A more positive interpretation was supplied by John Dewey (1859–1952) in works such as Theory of Valuation (1939), advocating instrumental, or goal-oriented, ethics as part of an integrated system of values. In the twenty-first century, business ethics and medical ethics are often understood teleologically, hypothesizing outcomes relevant to all parties at every level and stage of the process before adopting a course of action. A similar approach influenced the recommendations of American economic theorist Milton Friedman (1912–2006). In another field of philosophy, Peter Singer (b. 1946) argues that teleological ethics provide the most secure foundation for a defense of the rights of nonhuman animals. As such examples indicate, the teleological perspective has remained responsive to the evolving challenges in a world of increasing ethical complexity.
Bibliography
Baron, Peter. Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics. PushMe Press, 2014.
Crimmins, James E. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism. Bloomsbury, 2017.
Garofalo, Charles, and Dean Geuras. Ethics in the Public Service: The Moral Mind at Work. Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Häyry, Matti. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. New ed., Routledge, 2014.
Korsgaard, Christine M. "Teleological Ethics." Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L103-1. Accessed 27 Jan. 2025
LaFollette, Hugh, and Ingmar Persson, editors. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Quinton, Anthony. Utilitarian Ethics. 2nd ed., Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd, 1988.
Schueler, G. F. Reasons and Purposes: Human Rationality and the Teleological Explanation of Action. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 Oct. 2023, plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism. Accessed 27 Jan. 2025.
Spielthenner, Georg. "Consequentialism or Deontology?" Philosophia, vol. 33, no. 1, Dec. 2005, pp. 217–35, doi:10.1007/BF02652653. Accessed 27 Jan. 2025.
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed., W.W. Norton & Co., 2016.