Teleological Thought

Teleological Ethics

Near the end of World War II, the Americans readied a weapon of horrific proportions, the atomic bomb. The urgent development of the bomb had occurred in deep secrecy because of fear that an Axis member would succeed in delivering the weapon first.

A land invasion of Japan seemed inevitable and its cost was estimated at 1,000,000 American casualties, plus countless military and civilian Japanese. The recent invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima had proven that the Japanese would fight to the last man, even using kamikazee attacks. Despite their inevitable defeat, they seemed ready to ferociously defend their homeland.

President Harry Truman was notified that the atomic bomb was tested and ready. He alone faced the decision of whether to drop the bomb, with high casualties, or launch a land invasion of Japan, with even higher casualties. We know that he made the choice to bomb Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.

Truman's strategy worked and the war was over. However, the cost was high and the impact on the world was indelible. Over 200,000 Japanese citizens were killed and the effects lingered for half a century. Recently, on the sixtieth anniversary of the bombings, numerous publications castigated the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons. The euphoria that swept America in August 1946 was apparently being replaced with shame and reproach. What is the cause of this curious shift in response to the same event? Was the basis for the decision to drop the bomb faulty? Was it a mistake to do so; and if so, was it not a mistake of epic proportions? If it was wrong to drop the bomb, why was there an absence of protest at the time? Had basic values, the sense of what is right and what is wrong, changed or had the basis for making judgment changed?

In the historical perspective, one can understand Truman's thinking. His decision to drop the bomb resulted in the saving of many American lives. Despite how much destruction was wrought, a prolonged ground battle would have been worse. One could argue that Truman's decision actually produced the lesser of evils, but it remains one of the most controversial decisions of this age.

There have since been various alternatives proposed for the President Truman. Could diplomacy have yielded surrender? Perhaps the bomb could have been dropped somewhere with fewer casualties, thereby convincing the Japanese to throw in the towel? These arguments seem futile, since we do not know their ultimate end. The important analysis is whether Truman's decision was right or wrong, and that singular decision can be right in 1945 and wrong today.

Evaluation of Truman's decision reveals an important basis from which we make moral judgments. Ultimately, we consider the consequences of our actions and chose the action which, in the end, will cause the greater good. This approach to ethical problem solving is known as "teleological ethics" and is sometimes referred to as "consequentialism." The term "teleological" comes from the Greek roots "telos" which means "end or purpose" and "logos" which means "reason." The resulting term infers a process of reasoning which considers the end, thus when expressed as "teleological ethics" we are considering moral judgments on the basis of what good it will bring as a result, avoiding what is bad or evil. Therefore, the basis for judgment is the consideration of the consequences of the action, whether good or bad.

An immediate problem arises in teleological thinking; the definition of "good." After all, if good is what is sought as the end result, how do we know and adjudge "good"? Is "good" defined as what is best for me, for you, or for society as a whole?

For some, the highest good is the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain. This view is called hedonism, after the Greek word for pleasure. When practiced with devotion, some followers eschew delayed gratification, seeking the most immediate and pleasurable sensations. Others hedonists take a more Epicurean view supporting a more long-term or circumspect view of self-satisfaction. However, while these views are essentially teleological since they seek a given "good" result, the mainstream of teleological ethics regards the problem of pleasure-seeking a problematic. What kinds of pleasures should be evaluated? Can one compare the pleasure of eating ice cream with the pleasure of raising a child?

While hedonism is a form of teleological thought, it is difficult to take the logical jump to say that we ought to value pleasure above all else. But the ought is what ethics is all about. Therefore, it seems unlikely to use hedonistic belief to motivate the loyalty, obedience, and love that are the ground of obligation. For this discussion, we will dispose of this form of teleological thought.

In the teleological view, the ultimate basis of ethics is the human good, upon which is every act and judgment assessed. The consequences are what matter, and are all that matter. "Good" in this case is comparative, seeking the greatest amount of good or at least the least evil. In teleological ethics, the goal is not to establish a code or a set of rules, but to be objective and judge good in the non-moral sense. It is a state of affairs that is desirable. The teleological "good" might also be described as "the choice benefiting the greatest number of people," "perpetuating mankind," or "causing the individual to flourish."

Teleological theory is appealing and intuitive. It seems rational that the consequences of a moral act (as opposed to its intention, motive, or moral principle) determine the act's worth and correctness. Yet, as simple and practical as this approach to ethics is, does it resolve the dilemma faced by President Truman? One