The second theoretical distinction with which I would like to conclude is one that relates to what may be called theories of obligation (There are, of course, theories of value which I will not be discussing). There are two important theories of obligation that we must consider and that will also help us in our evaluation of the positions of Kant and Mill: there are teleological and deontological theories of obligation. In teleological theories the rightness or wrongness of actions is a function of the consequences of such an action. Thus, the rightness or wrongness of the action is determined by the non-moral value (what is judged to be good) brought into existence. What is the right thing to do? The answer from a teleological perspective is that which brings into being the greatest amount of good (non-moral) over evil (non-moral). Teleological theories vary in their definition of the good. The good may be defined as pleasure, power, self-realization, knowledge, etc. John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is teleological, and an act is right if it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. (Telos is from the Greek and it means goal or end).
Where the consequences are not considered, we may have a deontological theory of obligation. (Deon from the Greek meaning duty). Right and wrong do not take into account (consider) consequences that are judged to be good or bad (non-moral value judgments). Rather, an action is right because it is right. Immanuel Kant's position is deontological. There are certain actions that reason demands categorically, non-consequentially.
Content ©2008. All Rights Reserved.
Date last modified: August 12, 2008.
Property of Mercer County Community College