There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.
Kantianism |right
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act from
duty (). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong, but the motives of the person who carries out the action. Kant's first argument begins with the premise that the
highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification. Something is "
good in itself" when it is
intrinsically good; and is "
good without qualification" when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as
intelligence,
perseverance, and
pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good: Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when they "act out of respect for the moral law". Kant's three significant formulations of the
categorical imperative (a way of evaluating motivations for action) are: • Act only according to that
maxim by which you can also will that it would become a
universal law; • Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end; • Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal
kingdom of ends. Kant argued that the only
absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim—e.g., "I will lie"—then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. In his essay, "
On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns", arguing against the position of
Benjamin Constant, , Kant states that:
Divine command theory Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the
divine command theory, which is actually a cluster of related theories that essentially state that an action is right if
God has decreed that it is right. According to English philosopher
Ralph Cudworth,
William of Ockham,
René Descartes, and 18th-century
Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands. The
divine command theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on
Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath
because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not, truly speaking, "right" even though the actual physical action performed is the same. One thing that clearly distinguishes
Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.
Ross's deontological pluralism W. D. Ross objects to Kant's monistic deontology, which bases ethics in only one foundational principle, the
categorical imperative. He contends that there is a plurality (7, although this number is seen to vary to interpretation) of
prima facie duties determining what is right. These duties are identified by W. D. Ross: •
the duty of fidelity (to keep promises and to tell the truth) •
the duty of reparation (to make amends for wrongful acts) •
the duty of gratitude (to return kindnesses received) •
the duty of non-injury (not to hurt others) •
the duty of beneficence (to promote the maximum of aggregate good) •
the duty of self-improvement (to improve one's own condition) •
the duty of justice (to distribute benefits and burdens equably). One problem the deontological pluralist has to face is that cases can arise where the demands of one duty violate another duty, so-called
moral dilemmas. For example, there are cases where it is necessary to break a promise in order to relieve someone's distress. It is
absolute duty that determines which acts are right or wrong. • A typical example of
epistemic authority in Bocheński's usage would be "the relation of a teacher to her students". A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey. Scruton (2017), in his book
On Human Nature, is critical of
consequentialism and similar ethical theories, such as
hedonism and
utilitarianism, instead proposing a deontological ethical approach.
Deontology and consequentialism Principle of permissible harm Frances Kamm's "Principle of Permissible Harm" (1996) is an effort to derive a deontological constraint that coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's
categorical imperative. The principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case judgments, many of which involve deontological
intuitions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to
harvest his organs in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a
runaway trolley that would otherwise kill five
innocent, immobile people, onto a
sidetrack where only one innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case. In 2007, Kamm published
Intricate Ethics, a book that presents a new theory, the "
Doctrine of Productive Purity", that incorporates aspects of her "Principle of Permissible Harm". Like the "Principle", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity" is an attempt to provide a deontological prescription for determining the circumstances in which people are permitted to act in a way that harms others.
Reconciling deontology with consequentialism Various attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with
consequentialism. Threshold deontology holds that rules ought to govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross a stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over. ==See also==