Your teacher may be trying to bring out the distinction between teleological and deontological ethics, which is the difference between judging based on specific results and judging based on general rules--similar to the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Sadly, the use of the word "bullying" manages to combine fallacies of appeal to emotion (misercordia) and circularism. If the rational meaning of "bullying"--tyrannizing--is understood, then the illogical conflation of "circular emotionalism" may be unpacked: the state has a major claim to tyranny (use of force) which is justified on deontological and teleological preferences as to the "good." Thus, a "bully" may be well-served by being incarcerated--"bullied."
A similar example is "It's good to lie to SS if they're asking if you've seen Anne Frank." This scenario involves the deontological power of political correctness vs the teleological and beyond-the-state (deontic notions of Nuremberg political correctness): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
For the strict deductive deontologist, one may escape such teleological issues by using Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is a) specific, b) informed by all relevant axes or salients, hence c) likely to figure out that bullying or death camping is incorrect for those of one's own values, therefore e.g. it is deontologically correct to lie to said officers of the state if you value Anne Frank's life more than "political correctness."
Thus, if one deems a certain religious group to be dangerously subhuman, it is teleologically correct to dispose of them. So, teleological ethics is a person's values of what is the good, and meets deontological ethics as "it is a general rule not to do bad, but to do good always."
Thus, there are issues for either a Kant or a Mill, as for them Plato's question "What is the Good?" is perspectival, i.e., not based in Noetic awareness of "the Good, God." It does obtain that "God" may have mercy for whom God decides--indicating neither strictly deontic nor strictly teleologic action.
So, basically, "deonts" favor rules, based on what seems right, and "teleos" favor "what seems right, in the situation," preferring not to make over-reaching rules. The value of having rules may be that the rules generally guide actions, helping keep teleos in line; howbeit, governments have given deontic rules for the disposing of politically incorrect groups, e.g. the millions on Chairman Mao's "enemies list."
· 10 months ago