Content

Moral philosophy is the foundation upon which the study of ethics rest and it is

impossible to develop a framework of ethical decision making without evaluating normative

ethical standards derived from moral philosophy (Singhapakdi, Marta, Rao and Curtis,

2001).Generally, philosophers classify moral philosophies under two main headings which are

teleology and deontology (Barnett, Bass, Brown 1994, Ferrell and Gresham, 1985,Forsyth,

1992, Hunt and Vitell, 1986 and Murphy and Laczniak, 1981). According to Hunt and Vitell,

1986, deontological theories focus on the specific actions or behaviors of an individual, whereas

teleological theories focus on the consequences of the actions or behaviors. In other words, the

key issue in deontological theories is the inherent goodness and badness or rightness and

wrongness of an action, whereas teleological theories concentrate on the degree of goodness or

badness embodied in the consequences of the action.

Deontology is a moral theory that holds that acts are inherently right or wrong,

irrespective of the consequences of the acts. A central theme among deontological theorists is

that people have a duty to do those things that are inherently right. Namely, that duty is to take

the right action. Deontology may be the most preferred ethical philosophy today. Ideas of

deontology came to the general public through church, the Boy and Girl Scout pledges, ethical

codes, and even the military (Reidenbach & Robin, 1990). Besides, deontology is associated

mostly with Immanuel Kant who argued that the highest good was the good will, and morally

right actions are those carried out with a sense of duty (Kant, 1998 (1781; 1785)). Thus, it is the

intention behind an action rather than its consequences that make that action good (Bowie,

2002).

Deontology focuses purely on the intrinsic rightness of an action, without regard for its

consequences. Derived from two Greek words: deion, from dei, meaning 'must'; and logos,

meaning 'the word' deontology is in essence the account of the musts. Deontologists therefore

believe in the absolute necessity of duty, irrespective of the rewards or punishments that may

follow. So, for example, the deontologist would not tell a lie, even if by so doing he might save

the lives of many people. Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) insisted that human reasoning and good

will are necessary for consistent moral behaviour and he defined the good will as “the will that

obeys the universal moral law” (Rossouw, 2002: 51). He believed that some duties are absolute,

e.g. the duty to tell the truth, but others not, e.g. the duty to excercise – and he therefore

distinguished two forms of imperative – the categorical – an instruction to act that is not

dependent on anything - and the hypothetical – a conditional instruction to act. Kant’s

Categorical Imperative requires people to always act in such a way that they can, at the same

time, wish that everyone would act in that way. Thus, the act of telling a lie would be wrong,

irrespective of the motive for or consequence of the act. This is in contrast to a hypothetical

imperative that depends on some other condition, say a desire – for example one should go to

church only if you want to. Kant also believed persons should never be used as a means to an

end, and consequently he developed his Principle of Ends, which states that people should act in

such a way as to treat humanity always as an end and never as a means only. For deontologists,

moral actions are always rational actions, so the primary value of these imperatives is to provide

a way to reason with the question of, “What is right?” In practice, this can be achieved by

applying the maxim: “If everyone did this, would it still be okay?” Deontology is not unlike

virtue ethics, in the sense that as a moral theory its goal is for everyone to act virtuously at all

times. The difference is that it seeks to prescribe moral duties by promoting an imperative to act

morally, assuming that people will not, of themselves, always act in virtuous ways. It conforms

to most of the minimum conditions for morality, in particular responsibility, concern for others,

consistency, universality, and reason.

On the other hand, utilitarianism is another teleological theory of ethics which is the idea

that an action is determined solely by its contribution to happiness or pleasure as agreed among

all people. Utilitarianism is commonly described by the phrase of “the greatest good for the

greatest number of people.” Thus, it is also known as “the greatest happiness principle.”

According to Reidenbach & Robin, 1990, utilitarianism forces the decision-maker to consider all

of the outcomes of an action or inaction and to weigh one against another to determine that

which is best for society. In addition, Reidenbach and Robin (1990) argued the general public

learns about the ideas of utilitarianism through the democratic process, which is focused on

majority rule.

Utilitarianism represents the dominant and most influential normative teleological or

consequential ethical philosophy, and its different forms incorporate various concepts of utility.

Jeremy Bentham (1789) and John Stuart Mill (1863) embraced a "hedonistic" conception of

"pleasure" or "happiness." Pluralistic utilitarian’s have developed an approach that added a list of

other intrinsically good things to pleasure, such as knowledge, freedom, friendship, etc.

Preference utilitarianism proposes a firmer basis for theories of utility, based on peoples' desires,

choices, and behavior rather than on pleasure (Snoeyenbos & Humber, 2002). Utilitarianism

focuses on ends and not on the means required to achieving those ends, and it takes into account

all present and future benefits and harms that accrue or might accrue to anyone who is affected

by the action, including items that may be difficult to evaluate accurately (Schumann, 2001).

According to the utilitarian moral principle, an act is morally acceptable if it produces the

greatest net benefit to society as a whole, where the net social benefit equals social benefits

minus social costs (Bentham, 1789; Mill, 1957; Brandt, 1979; Rachels, 1999; Velasquez, 1998;

Schumann, 2001; Cavanagh, 1981). Utilitarianism regards the welfare of any single individual as

no more or less important than the welfare of any other individual, but it does not assume that all

individuals should be treated in the same way.