Deontology

?

Duty and Prescriptive Ethics

  • The term ‘deontological’ is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning ‘duty’
  • So, deontological systems are concerned with describing our moral duties
  • By contrast with consequentialist systems, deontology is concerned with the intrinsic properties of actions – whether they are good or bad in their own right
1 of 14

Kant - Introduction

  • The most famous moral deontologist is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant
  • Sought to establish real ethical duties over and above typical human desires (contrasted with Bentham’s psychological hedonism)
  • Kant thought that our morals should not be influenced by feelings (‘inclination’), but instead we should be concerned with fixed statements of duty (I ought to…)
  • This makes Kantian ethics ‘prescriptive’
  • It’s important to remember that Kant was a rationalist – he thought he could find a rational and universal basis for ethics and sought to demonstrate that being moral is rational behaviour
2 of 14

Good Will & Duty

  • Good will shines forth like a precious jewel. It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will” –Kant, 1785
  • “[Kant] argues that the highest form of good is good will. To have a good will is to do one’s duty. To do one’s duty is to perform actions that are morally required and to avoid actions that are morally forbidden. Doing one’s duty is doing the right thing, not the wrong thing. Why do we do out duty? Because it’s our duty to do it!” –Robert Bowie
3 of 14

Goodness and the Summum Bonum

  • Kant maintained that humans seek an ultimate end called the supreme good, the summum bonum
  • This is the state in which the highest virtue and the highest happiness are combined
  • While Kant was not interested in arguments for God’s existence, his theory of ethics assumes God
  • Kany thought that reaching the summum bonum must somehow be guaranteed
  • So, he thought it must be reasonable to assume that God exists to support the idea that we can reach the highest good
  • But what is goodness? Kant thought he had found it in the idea of moral law.
4 of 14

Moral Law

  • “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”
  • Kant’s moral law is objective – its rules are real and binding
  • The logical definition he applied to moral statements was a priori synthetic
  • This means moral statements cannot be demonstrated through experience – they are more a part of our understanding
  • And moral statements are not true by definition and so can be true or false
  • Moral law is not known directly from our experiences and may be true or false and is not a part of our reason
5 of 14

Moral Imperatives

  • For Kant, the basis of duty is what he calls ‘categorical imperatives’
  • To explain this, he distinguishes real ethics (categorical) from ‘hypothetical imperatives’ – instruction which have conditions attached  to them
6 of 14

Hypothetical Imperatives

  • Antecedent: ‘If you want to get in shape…’
  • Consequent: ‘…then you should get some exercise’
  • This prescribes actions on the basis of hypothetical desired outcomes – this is all about what we want
  • The antecedent is required for the consequent
  • Categorical imperatives do not require antecedents – and makes no reference to desires or needs
  • Kant believes that the whole point of ethics is that it is not based on our desires or circumstances
  • A moral law is a categorical imperative because it has no antecedent – there is no ‘if’ part of the command
  • In other words, duties are binding for their own sake
  • “All imperatives command hypothetically or categorically… if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself… then the imperative is categorical” –Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)
7 of 14

Hypothetical Imperatives

  • Antecedent: ‘If you want to get in shape…’
  • Consequent: ‘…then you should get some exercise’
  • This prescribes actions on the basis of hypothetical desired outcomes – this is all about what we want
  • The antecedent is required for the consequent
  • Categorical imperatives do not require antecedents – and makes no reference to desires or needs
  • Kant believes that the whole point of ethics is that it is not based on our desires or circumstances
  • A moral law is a categorical imperative because it has no antecedent – there is no ‘if’ part of the command
  • In other words, duties are binding for their own sake
  • “All imperatives command hypothetically or categorically… if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself… then the imperative is categorical” –Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (1797)
8 of 14

Categorical Imperative- Universal Law

  • “There is… only one categorical imperative. It is: act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” –Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
  • If an action is right for you then it must be right for everyone
  • If it is wrong for anyone then it must be wrong for everyone
9 of 14

Categorical Imperative- Kingdom of Ends

  • “So act as if you were through your maxim a law making member of a kingdom of ends” –Kant (1785)
  • You must act in such a way that assumes that everyone is treating everyone else as an end
  • You can’t act on a rule that assumes that people don’t
  • “I may lie because other people do” – not an excuse
10 of 14

Categorical Imperative- Humans' End

  • Treat humans as ends in themselves
  • “So act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, never merely as means, but always at the same time as an end” –Kant (1785)
  • Others cannot be used to achieve anything
  • This means that everyone must be treated fairly and have the same moral protection
11 of 14

Categorical Imperative- Freedom and Accountability

  • Causal determinism (if x happens, y must happen) applies in nature
  • However, Kant reckons it doesn’t apply to humans
  • For example, a hungry person will eat a pizza if it is offered, but that does not stop the choice being a free one
12 of 14

Deontology- Strengths

  • Kant’s distinction between duty and inclination seems sound – what is right is not always what we want
  • Justice for Kant would always be safeguarded for individuals, who are always “ends in themselves”. He avoids the Utilitarian flaw of allowing the minority to suffer for the benefit of the majority
  • Kant’s appeal to reason and universal values is sane and constructive. Surely it is best if we can give grounds for our ethics and share those values with others
13 of 14

Deontology- Weaknesses

  • The refusal to consider consequences at all seems perverse; what if certain actions have horrendous or wonderful results? Is that not important?
  • Deontology leaves the individual with no flexibility and no chance to consider individual circumstances. Intuitively, we seem to accept that certain rules must have sensible exceptions. For instance, sometimes we might need to lie to protect others
  • We might question whether it is really possible to ‘universalise’ moral maxims. There are an infinite number of possible moral choices; is it reasonable to suppose that the same rules can be applied consistently in different circumstances?
14 of 14

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Ethics resources »