عنوان مقاله [English]
In this paper I deal with normative ethics, and attempt to present a new theory. I suggest that both classical versions of deontology (which holds that rightness of action is an intrinsic character), and teleology (which puts goodness of action's consequences as the only criterion of rightness), are invalid. Rightness of action depends on two principles: principle of duty and principle of consequence. The principle of duty is the primary principle which determines our prima facie duty; the principle of consequence is the secondary principle which may confirm or contradict principle of duty. It is crucial to find some way to resolve the conflict of these two principles. If these principles are not contradictory, then there is no problem in act. But if they are contradictory, that is, the principle of duty obligates us to act for the intrinsic rightness of action, and principle of consequence prohibits us from acting for the badness of action's consequences, we will encounter a huge problem. I have proposed some suggestions to resolve this problem. I think that there are different types of duties and consequences which should be regarded differently. It is necessary to make two distinctions: 1) to distinguish between duties from right and duties from virtue; here I have benefited from Kant's terminology; and 2) to distinguish between utilizing consequence, harming consequence and Duty- consequence. Sometimes consequences of doing an action are utilizing to agent or other people, sometimes they are harming to them, and sometimes it does not have any utilizing or harming consequence – but causes us to abandon a duty doing which is obligatory. I name this Duty- consequence. I have prepared a Table which includes all types of conflicts between these five categories.