Subject: Bioethics

MODULE 2

1. Discuss the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity embodied in Kant’s
Deontology. (5 points)

German philosopher Immanuel Kant was struck by the reality that religion and
morality were a terrible pairing, and if anything, the two must be kept apart. Instead, Kant
claimed that in order to determine what’s right, you actually have to use reason and a
sense of consideration for other people. Kant thought that all of us regardless of our
religious beliefs, or lack thereof must take morality pretty seriously. He actually knew
that if we view religion for our morality, we are not all going to get the same answer. But
he considered morality as a constant in an almost mathematical sense. If we add two with
another two, it would always equal to four whether you’re a Christian, Buddhist, or
atheist. And for him, the same goes for moral truths. But he made a distinction between
the things we should do morally, and the things we must do for other, non-moral reasons.
He pointed out that most of the time, whether or not we must do something that is not
really a moral choice, instead, it’s just contingent on our desires. For an instance, if your
desire is to get money, then you have to get a job. If your desire is achieving an A in
class, then you ought to study. Kant called these if-then statements as hypothetical
imperatives. They are commands that you must follow if you want something. But
hypothetical imperatives are about prudence rather than actual morality. So, if you don’t
want money, you can actually choose not to work. And if you do not care about achieving
a good grade, studying becomes totally optional! But he viewed morality not in terms of
hypothetical imperatives, but through what he called “categorical imperatives”. These are
now the commands one must follow, regardless of his desires.
Basically, categorical imperatives are the humans’ moral obligations and Kant
believed that they’re derived from pure reason. He said it didn’t matter whether you want
to be moral or not as the moral law is binding on all of us. And he also stated that you do
not need religion to determine what that law is, because what’s right and wrong is totally
recognizable just by using your intellect.
Kant stated that the categorical imperative can be understood in terms of various
formulations. Mostly, different ways of phrasing or looking at the same essential idea.
And he was able to come up with four formulations of this categorical imperative.
The first formulation of this categorical imperative is actually known as the
universalizability principle. And Kant stated it in this way: “Act only according to that
maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without
contradiction.” To contextualize, a maxim is just a rule or principle of action. If we are to
assess this, a universal law is something that must always be done in similar situations.
So, for a Kantian, before you act, you would ask yourself, what is the maxim of my
action? In short, what is actually the general rule that stands behind the particular action
I’m considering? And in making this action, it is not fair to make exceptions for yourself
and anybody else.
 The second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people and it states:
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always
as an end, and never as a plain means.” To consume something as a “mere means” is to
utilize it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing
you are using. Now, we utilize things as mere means all the time. We use mug to hold our
coffee, and if it would stop benefiting us, like if it got a crack in it and started leaking, we
would not use it anymore. It is perfectly fine to utilize things as plain means, but not
humans. This is actually because we are what Kant called as “ends-in-ourselves”. We are
not mere objects that exist to be consumed by others. We are our own ends. We are
rational and autonomous. We actually have the gift to set our own goals, and work
toward them. Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers. Humans exist for themselves. So, to
treat a person as an end-in-herself basically means to be familiar with the humanity of the
person you are encountering, to appreciate that she has her own interests, values, and
goals, and that you must morally keep that in mind in your encounters with her.
And as what Kant always argue with the utilitarian, only proper and rational
application of this categorical imperative will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and
applicable to all moral agents.

2. What are the three formulations of Kant’s categorical imperatives? Explain each and give
an example. (15 points)

a. The Formula of the Law of Nature

This states that "act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a
universal law of nature without contradiction". We must consider if our maxims could
become or could function as a law of nature without contradictions. For instance, you
ended your life by hanging yourself after tough experiences because you believe that it
would free you from all of those misfortune. And that for you, it’s self-love. The maxim
of this action is “From self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life if its
continuance threatens eviler than it promises pleasure.” But the law of nature perceives
self-love the other way around. Self-love is all about taking care of yourself, choosing
your happiness in all circumstances and preserving your life. This formula of the
categorical imperative instructs us to search for a contradiction within a universalized
maxim.

b. The Respect for People Formulation or the Principle of an End in Itself

This states that "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." It simply tells us that we should distinguish the things that are truly valuable
(e.g., family and friends) from things that can only be valuable in a certain circumstance
(e.g., car key). We should not treat people like an object or an instrument to achieve
 something. Kant said, “we’re not mere objects that exist to be used by others. We’re our
own ends. We’re rational and autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals and
work toward them.” For instance, your basketball shoes are important to you because it
helps you to play the sport well. Without it, you can never play the game the way you
used to that’s why its value is purely instrumental. Contrary to that, there are things that
are really innately valuable like dogs. You don’t like them because of any further benefit
they give you but rather you value them because you appreciate every single thing about
them. Their waggling tail, their expressive eyes, their playful personalities and the loyalty
and love you receive from them – truly valuable. Basketball shoes exist for basketball
player while dogs exist for themselves.

c. The Formula on Autonomy or the Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will as

Rational Agents)

This states that "so act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making
universal law through its maxim.” This mainly focuses on opportunity to do our will
freely and that we are obliged to follow the categorical imperative because of their
rational will rather tan any outside influence. You must only act in accordance with
maxims that would be enacted as a universal law. People are more like universal law
creator than a universal law follower. Kant said, “unlike other things in the world, we are
self-governed. We are able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based on
our rational wills.” This would mean that things like lying and deception is never okay
because if you are being deceived, you can’t make an autonomous decision about how to
act because your decision is based on false information. For instance, if you borrow
money to your brother and lied about what you are going to do about the money, you rob
his chance to autonomously decide to help you. This shows that you treated him as a
mere means to accomplish your goals, with no thought to his own goals and interests
which is clearly a violation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

3. Compare and contrast utilitarianism and Deontology. Write the similarity and differences.
(6 points)

Utilitarianism and Deontology are best understood when compared to each other.
Utilitarianism states that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. utilitarianism as an ethical principle
determines the morality of an act/choice by its end result. It’s more like thinking of the
majority’s pleasure than yours. So, if you wish to by an ice cream for your family, you’ll
consider what flavor they like and buy it. On the other hand, deontology assert that the
morality of an action depends on its intrinsic nature, its motives, or its rules or principles
and not on its consequences. Kant even mentioned that an action can still be morally
wrong even if the outcome is good. Basically, deontology only considers what’s best for
yourself and the people you care about. So, if an intruder enters your house to harm your
family, you will shoot the intruder even if it is morally wrong because you aim to protect
 your family. There is hardly any similarity about the two but these two agree that human
happiness and pleasure stand as the end reward for good actions.

4. Discuss a situation that shows the application of Deontology. (5 points)

Deontology reminds us of the phrase “necessary evil” in which this phrase is used in a
situation that uses considered bad acts as a way of solving a problem or a way of getting
out of a very difficult situation. Deontology uses a person’s own way of thinking as a
reasoning for his or her acts. When children are young they are taught that lying is a bad
thing, and as they grow up, most of them remember this and is deeply instilled in their
moral code, they acknowledge that lying in any form is wrong, however that may change
when they are faced with a difficult situation in which lying is needed, such as when your
sister, for so many times has not gone home for the night again and is warned not to do it
again or the consequences will be grave. When she came home in the morning, she gave
an excuse saying that she texted you at night because she had group project that she
needed to finish immediately and that you must not have seen the text or you forgot to
tell your parents about it. You know that she spent the night out partying at some bar
drunk and crashed the night at her friend’s house, however knowing that the threats made
by your parents are real and not just a trick to scare the children, you lied and agreed to
the excuse given by your sister, to protect her, because you know there is a possibility of
her getting kicked out of the house. You felt guilty for lying, however you know that it is
for the best, in order for things to not get chaotic. This situation shows the application of
Deontology in a way that the act of lying is recognized as morally wrong, however it was
still necessary in order to protect the sister as it appealed to the person’s sense of duty of
being a sibling.