Long Course on
Deontology and Teleology
Supplement
to Would
You Lie to Save a Life
A. Short Course on Deontology & Teleology
1. Short Course on Deontology & Teleology
3. Origin, Use, and Harboring Wayward Teleology
chart 6. Teleological Arguments for God
4. Teleology & Blackaby’s Experiencing God Phenomenon
5. Basic Definitions of Deontology & Teleology
chart 7. Teleology a Decisive Issue for Biblical Ethics
chart 8. Summary Definitions of Deontology & Teleology
B. Long Course on Deontology & Teleology—Overlapping
chart 3. The Great Shuffle of Responsibility
(Revisited)
chart 7. Teleology a Decisive Issue for Love & Ethics (Revisited)
chart 8. Summary Definitions of Deontology & Teleology (Revisited)
This section is about two heavy hitting terms that we need in our arsenal to attack and deconstruct the Guns of Navarone, aka, Responsibility to Love; the two terms teleology and deontology are complicated and crucial to the ethical battlefield. Like many philosophical words, these pull together several concepts actually having no clear perimeters. Though there is a rather simple and essential meaning, we need to touch the depth of these two words.
Notice that deontology and teleology are more descriptive terms and not so much systems of thought in ethics. The terms have had dissimilar origins. For the purpose of this study, the two terms will be placed in a harbor of clearer perimeters. Let us start with H. Richard Niebuhr’s distinction between teleology, deontology, and responsibility. Niebuhr indicates some of the complication we are trying to clarify and do untangle some rabbits from the briar patch. Do not be surprised if you have to read these words twice. Niebuhr says,
Purposeness [teleology] seeks to answer the question: “What shall I do?” by raising as prior the question: “What is my goal, ideal, or telos?” Deontology tries to answer the moral query by asking, first of all: “What is the law and what is the first law of my life?” Responsibility, however, proceeds in every moment of decision and choice to inquire: “What is going on?” If we use value terms then the differences among the three approaches may be indicated by the terms, the good, the right, and the fitting; for teleology is concerned always with the highest good to which it subordinates the right, no matter what may happen to our goods; but for the ethics of Responsibility the fitting action, the one that fits into a total interaction as response and as anticipation of further response, is alone conducive to the good and alone is right….
At the critical junctures in the history of Israel and of the early Christian community the decisive question men raised was not “What is the goal?” nor yet “What is the law?” but “What is happening?” and then “What is the fitting response to what is happening?”[1] (Bold emphasis mine.)
This indicates some of the breadth, even if Niebuhr’s words are hard to chew on in the battlefield foxhole. Moreover, how on earth does one find what is a perfectly fitting response? Niebuhr’s words raise the bar, but not necessarily the bar of clarity. Herein, Christ’s competence as the criterion makes sense, certainly, even though Niebuhr confuses the simplicity of the Great Commands and the Golden Rule. If a principle cannot work in the foxhole at some point, then it is just shrapnel wounding people or structures, or simply littering the environment with twisted iron.
Deontology comes from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.” Deontology arose in the “duty” that was considered inherent in the teleological and utilitarian ethic of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who thought that the search for the “greatest good” was the highest duty, like Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) helped push deontology toward its present meaning denoting a choice that has certain virtue in itself apart from any consequences that might arise, and Kant is among the deepest and hardest of the moral philosophers to read, outside of what we would consider a purely biblical framework. The Encyclopædia Britannica says this:
Deontology consequently focuses on logic and ethics….
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”[2]
And so,
By contrast, teleological ethics holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories have been termed formalistic because their central principle lies in the conformity of an action to some rule or law.[3]
Stephen Darwall brought us an excellent modern anthology on deontology, and opens it with,
Deontological theories can be defined by their opposition to consequentialism on a fundamental point. Consequentialists hold that what is morally right and wrong to do depends upon what would bring about the best consequences, where the latter are evaluated simply as states of the world, as good or bad things to happen…. Deontology holds that moral values and standards cannot be determined at any level of analysis by what would promote the best outcomes or states…. And they unite in the belief that at least some fundamental moral principles or ideas are agent-relative ‘all the way down.’[4]
In many respects, we shall be unpacking the difference between what is and is not relative “all the way down.”
Everyone values deontology in Christian ethics, because everyone values that God is the source and object of biblical ethics. What God has declared “right” has rightness inherent in itself and rightness apart from any consequences that might arise. What God has declared “right” is a duty for all persons regardless of consequences—pure deontology.
In sum, Love and Truth are absolutely right, inherently right. Is that all?
Teleology is from the Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “science,” and it has had a rather stable definition. In ethics, teleology implies that “ends” determine some of the rightness of a choice, and at times even the rightness of a choice. Sometimes teleology has come to mean that ends are more important than “means” in the determination of the rightness of a choice. Sounds simple enough. The Encyclopædia Britannica says teleology is a
theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. It is opposed to deontological ethics…, which holds that the basic standards for an action’s being morally right are independent of the good or evil generated….
Teleological theories differ on the nature of the end that actions ought to promote. Eudaemonist theories (Greek eudaimonia, “happiness”), which hold that ethics consists in some function or activity appropriate to man as a human being, tend to emphasize the cultivation of virtue or excellence in the agent as the end of all action. These could be the classical virtues—courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom—that promoted the Greek ideal of man as the “rational animal”; or the theological virtues—faith, hope, and love—that distinguished the Christian ideal of man as a being created in the image of God.[5]
The ways in which teleological ethics have been applied vary from the biblical to the secular to the fully atheistic.
Utilitarian-type theories hold that the end consists in an experience or feeling produced by the action. Hedonism, for example, teaches that this feeling is pleasure—either one’s own, as in egoism (the 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes), or everyone’s, as in universalistic hedonism, or utilitarianism (the 19th-century English philosophers Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick), with its formula the “greatest pleasure of the greatest number.” Other utilitarian-type views include the claims that the end of action is survival and growth, as in evolutionary ethics (the 19th-century English philosopher Herbert Spencer); the experience of power, as in despotism (the 16th-century Italian political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli and the 19th-century German Friedrich Nietzsche); satisfaction and adjustment, as in pragmatism (20th-century American philosophers Ralph Barton Perry and John Dewey); and freedom, as in existentialism (the 20th-century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre).[6]
In those connections, it is easy to see how teleology has not always had favor in evangelical and biblical ethics. How can they answer the charge that ends or goals do not always justify the means? What about the seeming and nearly universal perception of the inherent goodness of many actions? Is it true or false that intentions themselves are a part of the choice.[7]
In the following, we shall be unpacking some of the difficulty on how an intention of a choice, the choice itself, and the consequence of a choice are all part of the complexity in determining the absolutely “right” choice in perfect Love. Furthermore, we indicate how the deontological and teleological are both parts of an absolutely “right” choice in perfect Love.
In Love, a right choice has both teleological and deontological elements.
Furthermore, with respect many Christian fundamentalists, whenever “ends” are talked about, they grimace and think that one is just a short step away from using any evil “means” to accomplish a good “end.” They twist biblical concepts in convoluted ways and mulch the Golden Rule. That is the fear, and sometimes the fear is reasonable. That is the preponderant fear of the radical fundamentalist side by side with a fear to itemize Responsibility.
Also, since “ends” are not as clear as a deontological “right,” that lack of clarity is an arena into which few actually want to go. Conformity is such a comfortable place, especially for the radical fundamentalist, not to mention anything about political correctness and vocational security. Some battles are just not worth the risk or effort. And Barney Fife leads the way.
Most important, though right in itself, Love also demands that ends are crucial to the determination of “right” choices in a way that Truth does not.
Interjecting some philosophy of another school and subject altogether, we need not be afraid of teleology, for it has served well to argue for the existence of God for a few millennia. Some examples are:
|
(1) Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover[8] |
|
(2) Thomas Aquinas’ five arguments: |
|
(a) Since motion exists, a First Mover is assumed (b) Since things are caused, a First Cause is assumed (c) Since contingent things exist, a Necessary Being is assumed (d) Since varying degree of perfection exist, a Perfect Being is assumed (e) Since design is evident, a Designing Intelligence is assumed |
|
(3) Ontological argument: being implies a First Being, with the very word God implying God |
|
(4) Cosmological argument: first cause implies a First Causer |
|
(5) Teleological argument: design in nature implies a Grand Designer[9] |
In addition to arguing for the existence of God, these arguments have in various forms served to philosophically argue for immortality and creationism.[10]
With regard to the cosmological argument, William Lane Craig has argued for creation and the existence of God. The Kalam cosmological argument for God is based upon the impossibility of an actual infinite and therefore the impossibility of a temporally infinite regress of events. With such an impossibility, there is good philosophical evidence of a creation and not much evidence of an evolution. The basic arguments are supported with a sophistication that at times requires an understanding of advanced physics.[11]
For our purposes, not just one, but all of the arguments have a teleological thrust, for the arguments for God are argued from the “end” product (be that motion, causes, being, design, etc.). From the “ends” of grand design that are clearly evident in our experience of a tree or fellow human being, we argue that a Great Designer exists—namely, YHWH God of the Old Testament and Father in the New.[12]
Difficulties have been pointed out in these arguments: the First Causer and Designer are hypothetical in a philosophical sense. Even so, they are cogent arguments, even poignant in their philosophical directness, simplicity, and sweeping range. For apologists defending the faith, the five arguments come together to form a one-page textbook without equal. With the shining light of centuries and volumes of extraordinary work, God has displayed His glory in the universe. For those who believe in God and experience God—for the Christian—these arguments have a substance in the God of the Bible, and they are indicative of what we already believe to be true (same for all religions). For the Christian, they are not merely arguments. With the presupposition of the reality of the biblical and personal God, the arguments are philosophical observations and not mere arguments anymore.
A First Causer and a Designer do in a helpful way—philosophically—argue for teleology in a Christian ethic that not just assumes but actually indicates a philosophical faith in the preexistence of the YHWH God of the Bible. A First Causer and Designer had “ends” in view: respectively, a cause of causing and a design in designing. Therefore, we contend, Christians have a definite Responsibility in fulfilling that purpose and reaching that end toward which they have been called, resurrected, empowered, and are being drawn toward—even heaven to come.
The “end” in view is not the perfect and completed end that some Classical Theists would argue that God fully sees today, as though God has perfectly settled all things today about 100% of the future. Such a view makes mush out of the New Testament view that God is still working in the world today: that is, we are working with God in many ways. Though some of the future is settled, like the return of Christ and our future heavenly rest, some of the future is not settled. What is so very important in this context is that the future is not settled above God’s ability to save today and not settled above God’s ability to prevent a victim’s tragedy tomorrow. Every man or woman has hope today—Love demands that.[13]
Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God study showed one way to find God’s will: essentially, look where God is working and go and join Him there.[14] In that free-will responsiveness and ability, Blackaby has articulated in a rough and unsophisticated fashion how teleology is an integral part of the New Testament. How does one distinguish between what God is doing and the Devil’s work dressed up as an angel of light? Blackaby’s book Experiencing God has fostered a veritable cottage industry for Southern Baptists. Because of the popularity, not very many have dared a real analysis of the workbooks themselves.
The Experiencing God phenomenon has an existential title, with a few novel Bible studies, but lacks any real cohesion. The singular insight of “look for where God is working and go and join Him there” is so clearly existential, and the few studies in the Experiencing God workbook substantiating and surrounding the insight have made this insight a great revelation. I suspect the insight’s novelty played a role. The study groups help the disciples apply this. Nevertheless, look closely at the chapter titles in the table of contents, and one can see that Blackaby has to strain to make the whole work cohesive; worse, Blackaby’s charts do a poor job at clarifying the continuity.
“Existential” refers for the most part to experience or existence and the derivation of insights into life and philosophy from experience and how we perceive the world. Existentialism is a broad, encompassing a complex set of philosophies that are usually not considered biblical by fundamentalists, and some of the philosophies are not biblical. Sometimes existentialism is abysmally negative—as in Nietzsche’s God is dead, and becomes essentially anti-Christ. But all is not negative, and few fundamentalists make a distinction between Nietzsche’s negative insights against the in-depth perceptions of others. In spite of some hard reading and some unevangelical-like moments, masters like Paul Tillich and Søren Kierkegaard in an existential vein have helped articulate many clearly biblical and golden Truths about life and Love.
In spite of the troublesome parts of Blackaby’s work and because of its popularity, here is a nice thought: the theology of the Experiencing God movement as well as the ready acceptance of the movement’s premier insight depend upon a blazingly clear teleological thrust: find what God is doing and go an join Him there. That is, in a roundabout way, the total Experiencing God phenomenon points out the already widely accepted teleological focus of New Testament ethics without mention of the term teleology.
Whatever happened to the ancient roots of teleological principles and the principles’ assimilation into Blackaby’s existentialist focus, we shall never know. Certainly, we do not want to argue for teleology and the teleological thrust of the New Testament based upon Blackaby’s popularity alone, nor do we want to argue for Blackaby from the widely esteemed though existential, teleological, and singular insight of “look for where God is working and go and join Him there.” The only places on earth that his insight may be considered a good method for finding and doing God’s will is in the Garden of Eden, a true utopia where absolute “rightness” was universally practiced, and maybe in a Mayberry RFD closet.
On a closer look, Blackaby’s insight is slim on substance for practical utility in the foxhole—or anyplace else—having more air than something practical. It sounds nice in a church parlor. But it is useless in the dark hour, and very easily leads one away from the more Responsible and practical methods of biblical principles. Blackaby’s singular insight becomes lacks the nourishment of baby food in comparison to the Golden Rule. On the other hand, the Great Commands, the Golden Rule, and the Great Commission are