Consequentialism#Teleological ethics
The teleological ethics (of gr Telos "target" ) is based on the idea that living things (including humans ) are designed so that they pursue inherent goals or purposes intended. If such purposes exist, they put as the ' use ' of living beings boundaries and establish a far-reaching right to inviolability, etc. The evidence for their existence and the justification for compliance with the consequent limits is inter alia the task teleological ethics. This, inter alia, there is a possibility to establish an ecological ethics philosophically.
Furthermore, one called teleological ethics as if they take a moral judgment only on the basis of induced states. The Utilitarian Ethics represents such a model, although there is also a movement to expand the utilitarianism to the inclusion of motives for action.
Directions
There are six distinct teleological concepts:
- Hedonism
- Eudaemonism
- Machiavellianism
- Ethical egoism
- Utilitarianism
- Remote Ethics
Terminology
The term " teleological ethics " should be avoided today. He uses an Aristotelian term for a non- Aristotelian philosophy flow ( consequentialism ) to describe. The term fits in the opinion of Aristotelians much more on the ethics of Aristotle and closes in this view, consequentialism almost out. The use is confusing, where experts are present, derive the terms of their word content and do not know the modern concept formation. According to Aristotle, the sentient beings are therefore especially honored that they are able to set themselves goals. Thus they are able only to ethical behavior. Basis of ethics is the goal here ( telos ). In this sense, the Aristotelian ethics in the literal sense in an excellent way, a " teleological ethics ". The followers of consequentialism have correctly observed that Aristotle assigns the targets in a similar manner as they themselves face the consequences. Therefore, they wanted to create a bond to Aristotelian teleology. However, Aristotle meant by the " target " is not a consequence (ie an effect ), but a cause. This results in a considerable difference to consequentialist ethics. One should use the word telos after its original meaning ( Aristotle ). If one uses the modern sense, it creates confusion.
Order effect
The consequentialism which claims the term " teleological ethics " for themselves, is an effect order. The ethical content of an action, the quality is determined from the consequences that attracts an act by itself. For decision making, it is of course impossible to know the actual consequences of the action, so are consequentialists de facto the likely to the best of action sequences the actual decision criterion. The action may take into account a very complex structure of consequences, which is almost impossible to overlook. Thus, for example Hare advises to orient themselves not to individual actions, but mainly to general maxims, standardized types of action, widespread practices, traditions and conventions, whose consequences are laws of nature similar predictable. These consequences are very important.
Cause order
This seems the teleology of Aristotle to the same. Similarly, the objectives which Aristotle has in mind are focused on the consequences that the action has ultimately. Target they are but only insofar as they are intended by a conscious intellectual gifted beings. So they determine the action, the cause of which they are. The consequences that subsequently arise out of the act, are thus not directly determinative of the ethical content of the act but the intention which is fixed at the time of the action. In the Aristotelian sense the agent has the time of his act all the means, the ethical content of his action to determine for themselves willingly. This is only possible if an action can be evaluated on the basis of their structure in a particular context, regardless of the consequences. But it is obvious that the quality of an individual action categorically can not be fully captured (since the finality is transcendent ). In contrast, a structural assessment is possible in assessing the shortcomings of an action. On the background of ethical intellectualism of Aristotle, it remains questionable how much space he leaves the pursuit of the will. The scholastic moral systems are concerned with the question of how far the pursuit of the will as part of the reason a clearance may be granted, to determine the individual action.
Code of ethics
Thus the Aristotelian teleology is between an objectivist consequentialism and Kantian deontology of which determines the ethical content of an act of duty requirements. The Aristotelian goal is aligned on an ontological transformation of reality, their evaluation is objective standards available. The deontology is geared more towards rules and norms or moral (not juridical ) laws, that is, the action itself is considered.