There are three basic kinds of perspective ethical theories: teleological, deontological, and virtue-based theories that help

answer the questions of what is Good, why it's Good, and where the Good is located? Often, the theories provide different and mostly conflicting answers to these questions. To better understand ethics, and its different points of views, I will compare the Teleological theory with the Deontological one. Teleological moral theories locate moral goodness in the consequences of our behavior and not the behavior itself. According to teleological moral theory, all rational human actions are teleological in the sense that we reason about the means of achieving certain goals. Therefore, moral behavior is goal oriented. The word "teleology" is derived from the Greek word "telos" that means "ends." One of the most common branches of this theory is utilitarianism, which was discussed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century. A utilitarian considers an act right if it is useful in bringing about the best consequences overall. In "A Fragment on Government" Bentham says "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." This kind of ethical behavior can be seen in the actions of a government that is faced with terrorist threats. The government will try to minimalize its casualties by any means, even if that means killing innocent people. In the Western philosophy deontological ethical theory has been dominated by two alternative theories: divine command theory and Kantian theory. Immanuel Kant's major theoretical work, "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," is probably representative of the most pleasant form of secular deontology. It is also rooted in natural law theory. Kant argued that morality is only possible in a community of beings that possess the natural attributes of rationality and free will. Therefore, we cannot justly hold someone responsible for his/her actions unless that person is capable of knowing right from wrong; and unless that person is capable of doing right and avoiding wrong. The deontological theories avoid both consequentialist reasoning and hedonism, in a favor of duty-based system of rules. Kant argued that we need to apply a rule, which he called the "categorical imperative." Kant says that the means of doing something is not because of any pleasurable consequence, but because it's the right thing to do. It is moral duty to abide by any particular rule that is consistent with the categorical imperative. In the "Groundwork" Kant offers several different formulations, including: "always act on universal principles" and "always treat persons as ends and never as means." "Always keep your promises." We know that human beings have always made promises. If everyone makes promises, but they never keep them, the whole concept of promise is derailed. If one keeps its promises, if and only if, keeping that promise increases his/her personal pleasure, or the pleasure of most persons, the concept of promise is derailed again. The basic idea is that the idea of a promise carries with it duty to fulfill it. The major difference between teleological and deontological theories lies in the topic of focus. Deontological ethicists focus on actions and rules. Deontological ethical systems

have at their center a set of rules. These rules may differ from system to system. For example, the Divine Command Theory states that an action is right if God has declared it to be right. In this instance, the rules are set by God or another relevant deity and only actions that comply with those commands are moral. Note that in this theory no weight is given to intention, desires or consequences of the actions in question. "The deontological approach does not rely exclusively on a religious foundation. Other deontological systems are founded on the non-aggression principle which states that there is no moral justification for the initiation of force against another human being. This principle precludes physical violence as well as political coercion such as taxation or abridgment of speech