“Deon”= Duty

 A duty-based ethic -- called deontology .

 focuses on the act and not its consequence.

 Rules can be expressed in 2 ways--

negatively positively
“Do not lie” “tell the truth”
“Do not steal” “keep your promises”
 Derived from the Greek word “deon” meaning “duty”
 Deontology is a category of normative ethical theories
that encompasses any theory which is primarily
concerned with adherence to certain rules or duties.
 Consequences do NOT matter!
 Intention is relevant. I am acting a certain way only if I
act for the right reason.
 No matter how morally good their consequences, some
choices are morally forbidden.
 What makes a choice right is its conformity with a
moral norm.
 The Right is said to have priority over the Good.
 If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be
undertaken, no matter the Good that it might produce.
The employee is responsible for reviewing invoices and
expense reports, and the company policy requires
original receipts to justify the items on the expense
report. However, the employee submitted photocopies
only.

A clerk with a duty-based ethic may reject the

employee’s report and require the originals even though
other clerks may simply process the report without
question.

To know that this is the obligation or duty makes

breaking the rule morally wrong.
 Deontological theories hold that actions that are
morally right are those in accordance with certain rules,
duties, rights, or maxims.
 Actions can be morally good, required, permitted or
forbidden.
 A maxim is a principle that underlies or informs
an act or set of actions.
 Several acts may satisfy the underlying maxim or
principle.

Famine Example:

Maxim: “Try to reduce the risk or severity of world

hunger.”
Actions: Giving money, Volunteer, Start an
Organization
 Act Guidance vs. Character Guidance

 Deontology and Consequentialism provide act

guidance; that is, they tell us what sorts of actions we
should take rather then what sort of people we ought to
become (Character Guidance).
CONSEQUENTIALISM DEONTOLOGICAL
THEORIES THEORIES
• Hold that an action’s Hold that an action’s
rightness or wrongness rightness or wrongness
depends on the depends on its conformity
consequence it causes (e.g to a certain moral norm
happiness, pain, etc.) regardless of the
consequence, I.e. “Right vs.
Good”
 Divine Command Theory
 “The Golden Rule”
 Natural law & natural right theories
 Kantian Ethics (categorical imperative)
 It’s the idea that we have a duty to obey God, and
therefore a duty to do or not do whatever God has
commanded us to do or not do.
 Divine Command Theory is a moral theory, and moral
theology, but, strictly speaking, it is not normative
moral philosophy.

WHY NOT? (Hint- Consider what it takes

for moral philosophy to be normative.)
 Philosophy is defined as the systematic inquiry into the
nature of things (such as norms), based on logical
reasoning or rationality.

 Following commands does not require reason (blind faith).

 Divine Command Theory has been variously categorized as

moral prescriptivism, as moral theology, and as
deontological ethics.
 Also known as the ethic of reciprocity, this
famous cross-cultural maxim states: “Do to
others as you want them to do to you.”
 May seem like a useful maxim at first, but it
has limitations:
 Depends on the mental state (personality,
mental health, emotional health,
compassion, etc.) of the moral agent rather
than the person being acted upon.
 Humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are
discernable by human reason.
 Humans are morally obligated to use reasoning to
discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity
with them.
 Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and
procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural
law for species to survive and procreate.
 Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally
good. Activities that work against that law are morally
wrong.
 As an example, consider that to eat too much or too little
and place life in jeopardy is morally wrong.
An imperative is a command to act.
It is prescriptive.

There are two kinds of imperatives:

1. HYPOTHETICAL imperatives
2. CATEGORICAL (definite)
imperatives
 Commands that are not absolute, but conditional, and
premised on one’s desires.
 The form of a hypothetical imperative is:
 “If you want Y, you ought to X.”
(Y = goal/consequence/end; X = means)
 An example of a hypothetical imperative is: “If you want to
pass this test, you ought to study.”
 Absolute and unconditional moral commands
 The form of a categorical imperative is:
 “You ought to X.”
(X = END-IN-ITSELF, without regards to
MEANS or other ENDS)
 An example of a categorical imperative is: “You
ought to study [because you are a student].”
 It is implied here that the rule or maxim is that
students are supposed to study… the end.
 Theories focused on the duties of the moral agent (the
person acting) rather than the rights of the person
being acted upon (patient-centered theories).
 This allows for agent-relative reasons for actions and
duties.
 Agent-Relative Duties: An Act is Relative to the
Individual Duties of the Agent (ex. Duties to family,
Personal Morality, Self-Interest).
 Agent-Neutral Duties: The Act is the Same for Every
Agent (ex. duty to follow the law, duty to not kill
innocents).
An agent-relative obligation is an obligation for a particular agent to
take or refrain from taking some action.
Since it is agent-relative, the obligation does not necessarily give
anyone else a reason to support that action.

Example:
 Each parent is commonly thought to have such special obligations to
his/her child, obligations not shared by anyone else. Likewise, an
agent-relative permission is a permission for some agent to do some
act even though others may not be permitted to aid that agent in the
doing of his permitted action. Therefore, each parent is commonly
thought to be permitted (at the least) to save his own child even at
the cost of not saving two other children to whom he has no special
relation.
At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of agency.

The idea is that morality is intensely personal, in the sense that we

are each charged to keep our own moral house in order.
 Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions
cause or enable other agents to do evil; the focus of our
categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of moral
contamination.
 In other words, we only answer for our own actions, not anyone
else’s, nor for the how others act in response to our actions.
 Ex. Refusing to lie even it will cause 20 more lies, while lying just
this once might prevent others from having to do so.

Agent-centered theories can be divided into those that--

1) focus on the mental state of the agent
2) those that focus on the nature of the agent's actions
One Type of Agent-Centered Theory:
 An action is wrong or right because of the intentions
that motivated it.
 Ex. Doctrine of Double Effect (longstanding Catholic
theory) –We should not “set ourselves at evil.”
 We are categorically forbidden for intending to cause
evils (such as killing innocents), even to prevent other
evils. However, it is acceptable to cause evils
unintentionally, even if we foresee them as effects of our
actions.
 The focus here is on belief, risk, and cause. These are not
the same as intent.
A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order
to save the mother’s life, might nevertheless consistently
believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy
on a pregnant woman with cancer. In carrying out the
hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the women’s life
while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus.

 Here, the doctor knows that the baby will die, but this is an
effect of the procedure, not his intention. It is implied that if
he could perform the procedure without killing the baby, he
would.

In contrast, performing an abortion, even under the same

circumstances, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a
means to saving the mother.
Assumes that all action originates with a will or volition.

Will + Action = Agency

The focus here is on labeling actions as right or wrong.

Then you must determine if there was agency in
committing the act (will + action or direct cause).

Ex. Murder– The death has to occur, you were the cause,
and you meant to do it.
If you were to hold baby's head under water until it drowns,
that is murder; however, seeing a baby lying face down in a
puddle and doing nothing to save it when one could do so
easily is merely a failure to prevent its death.

Our categorical obligations are usually negative in content:

We are not to kill the baby. We may have an obligation to
save it, but this will not be an agent-relative obligation,
unless we have some special relationship to the baby.

PROBLEM!!!– This sounds like an incredibly unpleasant

approach to many; it also reminds many of egoism and
offers reliance on self-interest.
These theories are rights-based rather than duty-based; some versions
claim to be agent-neutral in the reasons/obligations they give moral
agents.
 These ideas are focused on people’s rights as a reason to act or not to act.

Within this framework, you have the right against being used only as
means for producing consequences (either good or bad) without your
consent.

 This is not to be confused with more discrete rights --the right against
being killed, or being killed intentionally.
 It is a right against being used by another for the user's or others'
benefit.
 More specifically, this version of patient-centered deontological theories
prohibits using another's body, labor, and talent without the latter's
consent for any reason.
 Ex. Fat Man Trolley Problem
 Emphasizes the value of every human being
 Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect
to all human beings.

 Provides more ‘certainty’ in individual situations

 Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they
are concerned with the action itself– not a lot of gray area.

 It does deal with intentions and motives.

 You have to do the right action, but you also have to act with the
right intention.
Absolutist--
 Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules.
 The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to
the rule.

Allows acts that make the world a “less good” place--

 Because duty-based ethics isn’t interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that
produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.

Ex. If you could kill someone you knew to be a murderer, a utilitarian would say
“go for it” because it will prevent further death. Yet… a deontologist would likely
maintain that killing is wrong and would, therefore, allow any future deaths since
foreseeing or risking those deaths does not make you responsible.

Hard to reconcile conflicting duties--

Ex. When you have a duty not to kill but you have a duty to rescue a family member.
 Good Will
Acts solely
out of
Reverence for
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) Moral Law

“The German Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant,

is regarded as among the greatest and most influential of
Western philosophers, and undeniably as one of the most
difficult to read and understand.”
- Kantian Ethics and the Basics of Duty – page 143
A woman was near death from a unusual type of cancer.

There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of
radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.

The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times
what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged
$2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's husband went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about $ 1,000. He told the druggist that his wife
was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from
it."

So the husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-
for his wife.

Should the husband have done that?

How would Kant respond to this
scenario? Is it okay to steal to save a
life if the person is a loved one?
Reason & Morality:
1. Reason is not only the judge, but also the source, of right and
wrong. RATIONALITY is what allows humans to be moral beings.
2. Moral objectives exist and can be discerned through reason.
3. When properly used (rationally guided), will is good.
4. Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid
for everyone.

Moral Truth &Ethical Duty:

1. Moral truth stands by itself; it is autonomous and self-contained.
2. Ethical duty should not be based on the opinions of any
individual, group, tradition, faith, cultural norm or even God’s
will. They should be based on reason.
3. Ethical duties are the same for all.
4. Being good is a matter of reverence for duty.
1. Perfect Duties
 Kant also calls these strict or inflexible duties. These are
duties, such as the duty not to commit suicide and the
duty not to make a false promise, which have no
exceptions.
 These are never okay to break.
2. Imperfect Duties
 Kant also calls these the laxer duties. These are duties,
such as the duty to help people in need (beneficence),
which do have exceptions. They are still duties, but you
have some choice about how to fulfill them.
 Ex. You don’t have to give all your money to every charity;
your inclinations can enter into which charities you choose to
give to.
Kant Rejects Utilitarianism:

 A utilitarian would say that it’s okay to use a person as a

means to an end if the end is good.
 Ex. Trolley problem– It’s okay to push the fat man over the
edge to stop the train from killing five others.

 Kant would say that we should respect autonomy and the

dignity of persons. Therefore, a person cannot be used as a
means to an end without their consent.
 Ex. Trolley problem– It’s not okay to push the fat man over the
edge because you are using his body as a means. Kant would
say that this is stripping him of his humanity and treating
him as a mere thing or reducing him to a number.
 At Utilitarianism
A good will is not good because of what it effects or
accomplishes…it is good in the willing alone…”

 At Aristotelian Virtues
“Intelligence, courage, resolution,
determination…are good in many respects, but
they can be bad or hurtful when the will is not
good…” (see Adolph Hitler)
 Morality seems to consist of various law-like principles,
obligations, that limit our freedom.
 “I ought…” (duty) versus I want…” (desire)

 The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity)

 recognizes the moral law as his own self-imposed limitations on
individual freedom for the sake of all

 Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of

reason to regulate their behavior
 Unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have desires” or impulses and
act on them, we also have the power to reason and AUTONOMY
(the capacity for self-governance).

 Morality is an expression of that autonomy; it is “self-

governance.”
Moral Law
 CI1 – Formula of Universal Law:
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law”

Translation:
1. Can I universalize my act without contradiction?

Kant’s 4 illustrations:
 Do not harm the self (suicide)
 Do not harm or deceive others (lying)
 Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)
 Do what is good for others (beneficence)
CI2 – Formula of the End in Itself

“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.”

Consider Kant’s 4 illustrations,

from the perspective of the “agent”
(i.e., the person undertaking the action)
rather than action:

 Do not harm the self (suicide)

 Do not harm or deceive others (lying) AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq – A member of the 5th Civil Affairs

 Do what is good for the self (develop your talents) Group, 2nd Marine Division gives a soccer ball to an Iraqi child

 Do what is good for others (beneficence)

 CI3 - “The Kingdom of Ends” – Reason is both the source of
moral law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen).

 Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your maxims, a

lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey the
laws you impose upon yourself and others”

Translation:
Can this act become a binding moral law for all of us
(…including you)?
 CI#1 CI#2 CI#3
Could the P
Does it maxim be
Form a
Could it
become treat willed by you A
Maxim people
Universal
Law? as an End
and agreed
upon by
S
not merely
as a Means?
everyone to S
as moral law
for the E
community?
S

No No No

Fails the Categorical Imperative:

IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT!
Maxim: I may make a false promise in
order to reap financial gain.

Generalized: Anyone may make a false

promise to get something they want.
Maxim: I may refuse to help another
person in distress who cannot pay
me, even though I could do so at
little cost to myself.

Generalized: Anyone may refuse to

help another person in distress who
cannot pay her even though it
would cost her little to help.
It is 1942. You are hiding Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl, to protect her from the Gestapo
and Nazi policies of ethnic cleansing.

Imagine you are Immanuel Kant -

There is a knock at the door and an SS officer asks if you are hiding Jews in the attic.

What do you tell him?

Do you break the categorical imperative against lying? Categorical Imperative means – by
definition – it is an UNCONDITIONAL requirement to always comply.

Kant didn’t believe one should lie to protect others; this would break the CI against lying.
 CI’s derive their authority from within
– from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself
(as an expression of my autonomy)

 CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts”

(no strings attached)

 CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change

 Duty and the institution of morality are like this

(Must comply- no alibi)

 “Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or
not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or not).”

See any issues here?

 Kantian Ethics
Strengths
 Realm of duty, free from utility (Woo-hoo! No math involved!)
 Respect for persons
 Golden rule – do unto others, expressed in rational terms
 Reason-based

Weaknesses
 Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion
 The irrelevance of inclination (no such thing as extenuating
circumstances)
 Overly formal and universal
 i.e., most of our duties are in social roles
 Inflexibility
1. How does Kant account for heroism?
 Is it our duty to go “beyond the call of duty?”
 It can’t be our duty to do more than our duty.
 Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than an
obligation.

2. Wouldn’t celibacy be immoral?

 Couldn’t will it to be a universal law
(…not for long, anyway)

3. Which person is more moral?

a) A pirate who returns a wallet
b) A priest who returns a wallet

 Kant would say the pirate – he does so unwillingly, but out of

obligation
 Aristotle would say the Priest – He does so out of intent to do
good
CI1 = formula of “universal law”
Make it law… without any loopholes

CI2 = “respect for persons principle”

People as ends not means

CI3 = “Kingdom of Ends”

You are bound to obey the laws you make… for the Good of
the Community
Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third,
which attempts to portray the moral situation of a free,
rational individual within a democratic society.

The “essence of morality” is the motive (good will)

behind the act to produce a “…Systematic union of
rational beings under common objective law.”
• I will always tell the truth.
• I will always throw my paper wrappers out my car
window.
• I will cure cancer forever by experimenting with
one homeless person’s life.
• I will shoot the POW to get the information to
possibly save my troops.
• I will provide for my family.
• I will steal food for my family if they are starving.