Skip to main content
Log in

Are deontology and teleology mutually exclusive?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current discussions of business ethics usually only consider deontological and utilitarian approaches. What is missing is a discussion of traditional teleology, often referred to as “virtue ethics.” While deontology and teleology are useful, they both suffer insufficiencies. Traditional teleology, while deontological in many respects, does not object to utilitarian style calculations as long as they are contained within a moral framework that is not utilitarian in its origin. It contains the best of both approaches and can be used to focus on the individual's role within an organization. More work is needed in exposing students and faculty to traditional teleology and its place in business ethic's discussions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle: 1991, ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, in J. Barnes (ed.),The Complete Works of Aristotle 2 (Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, Oxford) pp. 1729–1868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, T.: 1948,Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Christian Classics, Westminster, MD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie: 1993,Ethical Theory and Business 4th (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J.: 1962,The Works of Jeremy Bentham 2, John Bowring (ed.) (Russell & Russell, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. L.: 1980, ‘Efficiency, Exchange, and Auction: Philosophic Aspects of the Economic Approach to Law’,California Law Review 68, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and P. H. Werhane: 1993,Ethical Issues in Business A Philosophical Approach (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J.: 1983,Fundamentals of Ethics (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J.: 1988,Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratsch, E. J.: 1985,Aquinas Summa An Introduction and Interpretation (Alba House, Staten Island, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisez, G.: 1983,The Way of the Lord Jesus (Franciscan Herald, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hospers, J.: 1961,Human Conduct: An Introduction to the Problems of Ethics (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I.: 1964,Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by H. J. Paton (Harper Torchbooks, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R.: 1973, ‘Notes on Moral Theology’,Theological Studies, pp. 34, 62.

  • McInerny, R.: 1982,Ethica Thomistica (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, R.: 1992,Aquinas on Human Action (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S.: 1967,Utilitarianism (Liberal Arts Press Inc., Indianapolis, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S.: 1978,On Liberty (Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C.: 1988,In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government (Simon and Schuster, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, L.: 1991, ‘Virtue and Role: Reflections on The Social Nature of Morality’,Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.: 1983,The Economics of Justice (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, H. A.: 1949,Moral Obligation (Oxford University Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, D. B. and D. J. Den Uyl: 1991,Liberty and Nature An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order (Open Court, La Salle, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1971,A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C.: 1992, ‘Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics,’Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Wright, G. H.: 1963,The Varieties of Goodness (Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A.: 1991, ‘Reflections on Business Ethics: What Is It? What Causes It and, What Should a Course in Business Ethics Include?’,Business Ethics Quarterly 1, 409–441.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Dr. James E. Macdonald received a Master of Business Administration, a Ph.D in Philosophy, and a J.D. He is a founding member of the Business Ethics section of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business and past-president of the Rocky Mountain Academy of Legal Studies in Business.

Professor Caryn L. Beck-Dudley received a Juris Doctorate. She is a member of the Business Ethics sections of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business and the Society of Business Ethics. She has published several articles and in 1993 she received the Holmes-Cardozo award from the Academy of Legal Studies in Business for outstanding paper submitted and presented at the national meeting. She is currently secretary-treasure of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macdonald, J.E., Beck-Dudley, C.L. Are deontology and teleology mutually exclusive?. J Bus Ethics 13, 615–623 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871809

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871809

Keywords

Navigation