Ordinarilly, the strength of this theory is that it stresses on the reason why some certain decisions are made. The theory also scrutinizes on the correct motivation of the decision and not just the moral rules that have been set (Blackler, 1997). For example, one of my friend who served as a peer student counselor was in a dilemma.Normally, the school does not allow the usage of cigarettes and that any incidence of its presence should be reported. One of the students at that school who was addicted and was using it approached him for help. The student claimed that he was willing to change if counseled. The duty and the obligation of my friend was to counsel the student with the help of one teacher. However the student did not want his secrets to be revealed. Because the school was obliged to such disclosures the student felt that it was not to be disclosed since it may bring some troubles to him.
This was a dilemma because the motivation and duty of my friend was doing the counseling and that according to the theory he was to make independent decision that would help the student. My friend decided to follow his independent decision to help the student without the disclosure therefore violating the school rule of not disclosing the incident. He thought that helping the fellow student was more fundamental because it brought goodness to his colligue.
This theory is subjected to weaknesses as it provides no clear way to resolve conflicts that may arise between moral duties. The theory also does not allow for grey areas where the morality of an action is questionable. A police could find a person violating a rule to which according to the person he/she does not see it is wrong maybe because of the culture that he comes from. (Maguire, 2002)
According to Glen, teleology describes an ethical perspective that contends the rightness or wrongness of an action is based solely on the goodness or badness of their