DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

Deontological Theory/Ethics
DEIN/DEON =to be obligated duty

In this kind of theory or philosophy, an act or conduct is considered good or right, thus justified morally, not by
showing it has good or beneficial consequences or effects but by virtue of its being an action that emanates from a
sense or duty or moral obligation.
Immanuel Kant(1724-1804)=> German philosopher, recognized as the most philosopher who has ever lived
The Good Will: The Heart of Kant’s Ethics
 What makes an act right/good and wrong/ bad does not depend on its results or consequences, since all these
are simply beyond one’s control—hence a matter of luck or accident.
 The heart of Kant’s ethical philosophy emphasizes on the importance of reason and the unqualified rational
nature of moral principles.
 Nothing can be called good without qualification except a good will.
 “Duty for duty’s sake”
 It goes against the ethics of utilitarianism.

A good will is good not because of what it performs or affects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some
proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition, that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be
esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay, even the sum total
of any inclinations. Even if it should happen that, owing to special disfavor of fortune, or the niggardly
provision of stepmotherly nature, this will should wholly lack the power to accomplish its purpose, if with its
greatest efforts, it should yet achieve nothing, ang there should remain only the good will … then, like a jewel, it
would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its own value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can
either add to nor take away anything from this value … (as quoted in Popkin & Stroll 1993:38)

Duty Over Inclination

David Hume=> held that we act primarily on inclination

 A person is only acting morally only when he suppresses his/her feelings and inclinations and does that which
he/she is obliged to do. (Popkin & Stroll 1993:36)
 “Doing one’s duty is doing something that one is not inclined or willing to do, but that he/she does because
he/she recognizes that he/she ought to do it; an obligation exists and he/she must fulfill it.” (Popkin & Stroll
1993:36)

Duty is Superior to Happiness

 “Our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the
utilitarians claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied
our desires.” (Wall 2003:37)
 The rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by its outcomes or results by its intrinsic property.

The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle

 “Anytime we do a certain act voluntarily, we operate under some kind of maxim, rule, or directive.”
(Falikowski 2004:314)
Maxim=>a guiding reason or principle for acting under a particular situation
=>a personal and subjective principle on which we act or behave as contrary to an objective and external principle or
rule upon which we should act

Universalization=>conceptualized by Kant, states that we must apply the judgments we make to everyone, without
exception

The Categorical Imperative

 Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.
 Do unto others what you would like others do unto you. Do not do unto otherswhat you don’t want others do
unto you.
 A test of which are said to be permissible or justifiable.
 NO ONE SHOULD BE EXEMPTED!

The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)

Principle of Ends Principle of Humanity
For Kant every human being has a supreme worth and profound dignity due to the fact that he is a rational agent.
What is this End that the Categorical Imperative Serves?

 “All rational beings exist as ends in themselves. As ends in themselves, human beings have value that is
absolute and unconditional.” (Clark & Poortenga 2003:69)

The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)

 So act so as to treat humanity whether in your own person or that of any other always as an end and never as a
means only.
 In valuing anything, I endow it with value; it can have no value apart from someone’s valuing it. As a valued
object, it as conditional worth, which is derived from valuation. On the other hand, the person who values the
object is the ultimate source of the object and as such belongs to a different sphere of beings. We, as valuers,
must conceive ourselves as having unconditioned worth. We cannot think of our personhood as mere thing, for
when we would have to judge it to be without any value except that is given to it by the source of value, and
there is no reason to suppose that one person should have unconditional worth and not another who is
relevantly similar. Therefore, we are not mere objects. We have unconditional worth and so must treat all such
value-givers as valuable in themselves as end, not merely means. (as quoted in Pojman 2005:154)

People’s worth is intrinsic.Unlike things or objects that only have conditional value and worth, people then are the
source of all conditional value.
We should also treat our own very selves with respect just like the way we treat others.

Duties that We Owe to Ourselves as Persons (Falikowski 2004:313)

 Self-respect
 Self-mastery
 Duties concerning our bodies
 Duties regarding the way we ought to busy ourselves in work and in play
Morality does not only concern others but also ourselves
The Autonomy of the Will (Kingdom of Ends)S
 An act become moral when it is coming from one’s willful respect or reverence to the moral law.
 Everybody treats everyone as end in themselves. No one uses anyone to serve or further his or her ends.

Critical Assessment of Deantological Ethics

Strengths of Deontological Ethics
1. Intrinsic worth of every person is very admirable.
2. A good motive or intention should play in acting.
3. In setting aside the consequences or result as the main determining factor in assessing the morality of the act
(as opposed to the utilitarians), morality is brought back under the man’s absolute control.
4. A reminder that most of the things we ought to do are also the ones that are our own moral obligations.
5. It gives supreme importance on the role of reason in morality, particularly in knowing and establishing which
acts are moral and immoral.
6. It solves the problem of justness and fairness.
7. Kant’s universalizability principle echoes the Golden Rule appeals to common sense and our moral intuition in
everyday life.
8. It can be made into a guiding principle that can have universal application.
9. It poses a great challenge to stand on our inner conviction of doing what is right simply because its right
instead of just allowing oneself to be dictated by what the crowd thinks to be right.
10. It allows us to exercise our freedom and rationality in determining what is really good for us.

Weaknesses of Deontological Ethics

1. It promotes rush and irresponsible behavior
2. Inconsistent with the belief that only the good will or intention matters in assessing the morality of the act.
3. A dilemma concerning having to face two equally relevant and important duties or obligations.
4. Absolute duties seem to be too strong that it does not allow exemption.
5. The claim that we ought to do what is right simply because its right or to do the good because it is good is too
vague and general.
6. Kant’s primary on rationality as the crucial key to understand what we ought to do, though laudable, does not
consider the undeniable fact that a lot of our everyday actions spring from emotions and feelings or
inclinations.
7. No clear cut principle that decides where universalization should and should not be applied. (Ellin 1995:291)
8. Bias to the intellectual elite
9. Being rational is clearly not all that matters.
10. It ignores the fact that many of our actions that can be universalized are not subject to ethical considerations.