Talk:Teleological ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
needs more explanation, not with quality standards
[edit] What's different from consequentialism?
Reading this article from top to bottom, I failed to find anything new or different from consequentialism. As a novice I am not completely sure, but it almost seems the two terms are denoting the same thing. If I am right, the two articles could be merged.Cosfly (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The terms do refer to the same approach. I think that the good thing about this page is that it explains the use and history of the term. If this information is merged into the cnsequentialism page, I think it will be lost for all practical purposes. But, this is the only reason not to merge. Anarchia (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the use and history of the term is worth noting but that does not make as a disagreement on merge. The problem with separated page is that, if a reader clicks "teleological ethics"(or "consequentialism") from another third page, the reader will be directed only there and will fail to find out "consequentialism"(or teleological ethics).Cosfly (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be a problem. If they end up on the teleological ethics page, they are told that the term Consequentialism is currently used most often. If they click on cobnseuqentialism, they probably don't much care about the teleological ethics page anyway. But, I don't really mind whether or not it is merged. Anarchia (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the use and history of the term is worth noting but that does not make as a disagreement on merge. The problem with separated page is that, if a reader clicks "teleological ethics"(or "consequentialism") from another third page, the reader will be directed only there and will fail to find out "consequentialism"(or teleological ethics).Cosfly (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this article does not adequately describe teleological ethics. Teleological ethics is more correctly thought of has a three-prong approach to man. There is man-as-he-is, man-as-he-should-be-if-he-realized-his-telos(purpose), and moral laws. Ethics in this sense are meant to be a transforming medium from man-as-he-is to man-as-he-should-be-given-his-telos. From this teleological systems of ethics are formed (chapter 5 of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.86.224 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Consequentialism is a form of teleological ethics, but teleology is a distinct principle. Virtue ethics, for example Aristotle's ethics (See the Nicomachean Ethics) are also teleological, but in a very different way. Aristotlean Ethics assume that everything has a function and therefore it is something/somebody's (teleological) end that they should aim at achieving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.143.185 (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
