St.

Paul University Surigao

St. Paul University System

8400 Surigao City, Philippines

MODULE 4

FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR MORAL DISPOSITION

Introduction

We have a Filipino dictum, “Ang utos ng hari ay di nababali”. This seems to fit to our next ethical
theory which is Deontological Ethics. Fernandez (Ethics 2018:145) cited Solomon and Greene (1999:19):

The historical origin of this particular moral theory can be traced back to the early
beginning of human civilization, “at a time when the word of the chief, or the king, [or God
or any other recognized authority for that matter] was given unconditionally and without
invitation to appeal on the basis of consequences”

Fernandez continued, “Here, the commands or edict of the ones in authority and power are
something that are taken and obeyed without any further question or objection” (2018:145). It seems familiar to a
military rule “Obey first before you complain”. He retorted, “Once the commands and orders are given and handed
out from above, everyone below is expected to follow unconditionally and ‘without any qualification,’ Obedience is
something absolute or categorical” (2018:145). This seems good if you have a good ruler or leader. But what if a
leader lacks the discernment or too selfish or can be manipulated by those persons who are surrounding him/her,
this becomes problematic.

TOPIC : Deontological Ethics

HOURS : 3 1/2 hours

LEARNING 1. Trace the historical origin of deontological theory.

OUTCOMES
2. Explain the fundamental principles of Kant’s deontological ethics.

3. Articulate the two formulations of the categorical imperative of Kant;

4. Assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of deontological ethical theory; and

5. Recognize the importance of moral obligation in living a moral life.

TEACHING- :
LEARNING
ACTIVITIES
 1. Case Analysis (Adapted from Fernandez, 2018:169)

Instruction: Apply the “Principle of Humanity” in relation to President Rodrigo Duterte’s

pronouncement of banning the deployment of OFWs bound for Kuwait.

President Rodrigo Duterte had lambasted on a number of occasions some of the Middle East countries
for what has become common incidences of maltreatment of our Filipino OFWs, especially women
domestic helpers. Many of these incidences have led to some horrible injuries, and even death of our
fellow citizens at the hands of foreign employers. The President even ordered a ban of OFWs to
Kuwait. He said that he does not want Filipino women treated like animals or slaves, as he aims to
have their dignity protected from abuse.

Processing: (Adapted from Fernandez, Ethics 2018:145-158)

Historical Origin of Deontological Ethics

The historical origin of this particular moral theory can be traced back to early beginning of human
civilization, “at a time when the word of the chief, or king, [or God or any other recognized authority for that
matter] was given unconditionally and without invitation to appeal on the basis of consequences” (Solomon
& Greene 1999:19).
Here, the commands or edict of the ones in authority and power are something that are taken and
obeyed without any further question or objection. Once the commands and orders are given and handed
out from above, “without any qualification.” Obedience is something absolute or categorical.
Consequently, as mentioned, one is not expected to pose any question but is asked to take the
command as it is given. No if and no but. “[I]t just tells [one] what [one] must do or not do” (Solomon &
Higgins 2017:262). It’s as simple as that. Thus, the word of the king, president, the ruler, the lord, the boss,
the CEO, the state, the party, the master, or the chieftain, is the law.
This kind of theory is sometimes called Deontological (from the Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning
“to be obligated,” or simply “duty”). In this kind of theory or philosophy, an act or conduct is considered
good or right, thus justified morally, not by showing that is has good and beneficial consequences or effect
but by virtue of its being an action that emanates from sense of duty or moral obligation.
Due to its central emphasis on the significance and value of duty or obligation as the main motivation
or intention in human actions, this theory in ethics has also come to be known in philosophy as
Deontological theory or Deontological ethics.
In fact, Deontological or simply Duty ethics, recognizes only those actions that are done out of pure
duty as the ones having moral worth. Everything else does not give an act any moral value or ethical
significance.

Kant’s Major Contribution to Deontological Theory

If one tries to scan the entire history of ethical philosophy, perhaps one cannot find a more avid
defender of Deontological theory in modern times than the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804), a philosopher whose remarkable contributions to the history of philosophical thought put him
on the same level with the greatest of the greats among the world’s foremost thinkers.
For some, Kant is recognized as the most important philosopher who has ever lived. The entirety of
his philosophic corpus, in the words of an author, is “brilliant, profound, rich, complex, and fascinating” (Ellin
1995:260).
It is said, with fairness, that no other thinker has contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to
the philosophical study of ethics as Kant.

The Good Will: The Heart of Kant’s Ethics

Kant claims that 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 and accident.
(Things usually turn out the way they are, not the way we want and expect them to be.) Thus, the
consequences of actions are entirely out of our hands.
Hence, for him, morality, as the sole and exclusive domain of rational beings, should be something
of which one should have total control. If one is indeed fully accountable of his action and conduct, then
chance or luck should be taken out of the equation.
This, he believes, can only be achieved by appealing to some universal rational ethical principle-an
ethical principle that is in the form of a “maxim” that guides human actions at all times and in all situations.
Here, the center of Kant’s ethical philosophy is his primary emphasis on the on the importance of
reason and the unqualified rational nature of moral principles. Such a philosophy indeed “a strict,
hardheaded, and uncompromising view of morality” (Solomon & Greene 1999:249).
This seemingly uncompromising stand has to be understood in view of Kant’s own philosophical
project that is to set, once and for all, a kind of morality that is grounded firmly on an objective and rational
foundation as well as build one single set of moral principles for anyone who claims to be logical.
At the very outset of his brilliant philosophical work, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
(published in 1785), Kant writes: “Nothing…can be called good without qualification except a good will.”
Having a good will, or rather acting in good will means doing an act with the right intentions or motives, in
accordance with the right maxims or principles, doing one’s duty or obligation for its own sake (“Duty for
duty’s sake”) rather than for personal gain or self-interest.
This goes against the ethics of utilitarianism, which prioritizes the consequences that one can
achieve in acting.
In Kant, morality is primarily, if not solely, a matter of motive or intention and not a matter of what
one can gain or achieve in acting.
If one’s motive in doing an act is good and noble, regardless of its consequences or results (even if
they are not beneficial to you), then it’s good and thus your conduct is morally praiseworthy. You ought to
be congratulated for doing “the right thing.” As far as the ethics of Kant is concerned, that’s all that matters.
In Kant’s own words:

A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, 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 of the sum total of all 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,
and 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 whole value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can neither add to nor
take away anything from this value…. (As quoted in Popkin & Stroll 1993:38)
 Hence, the worth of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects that one can
derive from the act. This is the heart of Kant’s ethics-doing the good because it’s good, nothing more and
nothing less.
The good here is the one that you ought to do. You simply have to do the good because it’s good.
It’s good because it’s a moral duty for everyone to do the good. Kant’s ethics is an ethics that is primarily
based on good will. The good will is good if it does its duty out of pure reverence to the moral law.

Duty over Inclination

In strong reaction to some philosophers, notably David Hume (who awakened Kant from his
dogmatic slumbers) who held that we act primarily on inclination (doing the thing that one feels like doing,
and thus no obligation exists), Kant considers such an account of morality totally mistaken. He believes that
“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 & Strolls 1993:36)
Hence, if one’s reason for acting is simply out from one’s taste or inclination/feeling and as such no
demand or obligation is present (for one is just acting on what one finds pleasant and beneficial), one
cannot be said to be performing a moral action. One cannot claim any moral praise for it.
The only act that is worthy to be called moral is an act that is done not out of inclination but one that
is done out of duty. “[D]oing 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)
For instance, a student who studies only because he is afraid to fail in a particular subject (and this
would mean not being able to graduate) is not a moral person. Nor the reason for studying is that he is
merely inclined to.
Thus, to be a good person, in Kant’s view, is o act from a sense of duty alone. One should not be
motivated by any other reason except what emanates from this sense of moral obligation. Only and only
then that one can truly say that he is acting morally and deserves to be called a moral person.

Duty is Superior to Happiness

If being a good person, according to Kant, requires us to do what is right out from a sense of duty or
moral obligation, “[o]ur 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” (Wal 2003:37).
And if the consequences of our actions are the ones that give them moral worth, then morality
becomes contingent to something outside itself. In that case, morality would become not an end in itself but
just means to an end that would leave us without a stable and firm foundation.
For Kant, as we said, the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by its outcomes or
results but by its intrinsic property. Thus, for instance, “lying is morally wrong not because it results in the
experience of pain instead of pleasure [say, we will be scolded by our parents and will be grounded for a
week] but because it is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences. The same goes true for breaking a
promise, cheating and the like” (Wall 2003:37).

The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle

 According to Kant, “anytime [we do a certain act] voluntarily, [we] operate under some kind of
maxim, rule or directive” (Falikowski 2004:314). A maxim is one which is the guiding reason or principle for
acting under a particular situation. As free and rational beings, we act on the basis of self-generated rules
or laws of conduct (and this primarily makes us unique moral beings).
More specifically, a maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle on which we act or behave
as contrary to an objective and external principle or rule upon which we should act.
“To say maxims underlie our [daily conduct] does not [necessarily] mean that we always abide by
them” (Falikowski 2004:314). More often than not, as one can perhaps readily observe even in one’s own
self, people are not even aware, at least explicitly, of the maxims whereby they act or conduct themselves
in specific situations.
As often is the case,”[i]mplicit maxims are most likely to come [only] to people’s attention and to
made explicit when they are asked to justify their behavior to other or when . . . they are asked to justify
their actions to themselves” (Falikowski 2004:314). The whole point here is this: maxims are part and
parcel of our daily conduct and behavior, whether we are aware of them or not.
The notion of the categorical imperative, many believed, is where Kant makes his greatest and
lasting contribution to ethical thought. Here, he introduces the concept of universalization, which holds that
we must universalize our moral judgements. It states that we must apply the judgements we make to
everyone, without exception.
The Categorical Imperative tells us that is morally wrong to act on a maxim that we could not will to
be a universal law. What has to be universalized is not the act per se but the maxim of the act. The main
point here is the very motive of action.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative is expressed in a number of different ways, but undisputedly, the most
popular formulation is: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
According to this particular formulation, the essence of morality lies in acting on the basis of an
impersonal principle that is valid for every person, including oneself (Falikowski 2004:314). Maxims that
cannot be universalized or applied to all without exception on a consistent basis are immoral.
Take the case of making a false promise (Kant’s own example). To make a promise, one is saying
that he intends to fulfill it. Promises are meant to be fulfilled (not broken, as many would love to say) for
them to be meaningful and truly sensible.
Thus, accordingly, if one who makes the promise does not intend to fulfill it, then we can say that the
promise is false, not a true promise. (Again, to promise is to say that one intends to fulfill it.) Thus, the act of
promising necessarily and logically implies that one has the intention to fulfill it, if only to be true to the real
meaning (of the word itself) of promise-making.
Now, let us try, for the sake of argument, to accept as a maxim that says: “I’m making a promise
without intending to fulfill it.” Let us see whether this can stand the test of the universalizability principle.
Here, one has to ask whether this can be made into a universal law (A law that requires everyone to
break his promise). To do this, we have to imagine a scenario where everyone will have as their maxim
making promises without fulfilling them. Imagine everybody does this since there is a universal law that
exactly commands this to be done.
What happens then? Logically and expectedly, if everyone breaks their promises, naturally no one
will believe in promises anymore. And since no one believes in promises anymore, no one makes any
promises.
But reason tells us that is absurd and simply impossible. Here, the maxim breaks down. It is
 impossible to have the maxim universalized since it contradicts itself and is self-defeating. It would undercut
the entire practice of promise-making. It simply self-destructs.
Thus, Kant concludes that the maxim contradicts itself for “[it not only has disastrous consequences
(the concern of the utilitarians), it undercuts its own meaning and betrays a purely formal inadequacy”
(Solomon & Greene 1992:21)
Without a doubt, Kant’s concept of universalizing our maxims captures so many of our everyday
moral sentiments. How many times we hear people say things like : “what would happen if everyone
behaved like you do?” “How would you feel if others would do the same” “If you would not want everyone
else to act in a certain way, then you should not either.” “Do not do what you are not willing for everyone
else to do” “How would you like it if anyone did the same to you?”
As the very familiar Golden rule says: “Do unto others what would you like others do unto you” or
putting it negatively: “Do not do unto others what you don’t want others do unto you” ( Though others would
say that Kant’s universality principle is distinctively differently from it.)
Hence, in concrete terms, to find out for yourself whether what you intend to do is right or wrong,
good or bad, moral or immoral, is to ask: “What if everyone else would do the same?’ The whole point thus
is this: Don’t do things that, if everyone did them, would make for a world you yourself find unacceptable or
abominable and repugnant.
A number of Kantian commentators claim that the categorical imperative is essentially a sort of a test
of which actions are said to be permissible or justifiable. “In applying the universality test to specific
situations, if a particular act fails this test, then it is said to be wrong or immoral, hence not permissible or
morally forbidden” (Lawhead 2003:479).
It is then wrong or immoral to behave in ways that you could not reasonably and honestly be willing
to have everyone else act. Don’t make yourself or anyone else (no matter what he/she and whatever
his/her conditions or situations are) an exception. The categorical imperative holds true for everyone in this
world and even outside of it. This morality’s supreme and ultimate principle.

The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)

The other specific and famous Kantian formulation of the categorical imperative concerns respect for the
dignity of persons, oftentimes referred to as simply the “Principle of Ends” or sometimes called as the “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. This means that because of the ability to think one is able to do decide what particular goals to puruse
and generally what one wants to do with his life. One’s essential dignity therefore mainly lies on the person’s capacity
to determine his own destiny or end as a self-directed and conscious being.
Hence, as a self-conscious and self-determining creature, the person as an end can never be subjected
to any form of manipulation and exploitation as if he is just any other object that can be used to serve some other
ends rather than as an end in himself.
Kant asks “if there were a categorical imperative, what would its end be? Who does it serve? Since every
action has an end and since the categorical imperative is binding on everyone, its end must be given by reason alone
and so equally valid for all rational being” (Clark & Poortenga 2003:69)

So what is to end that the categorical imperative serves?

The answer for Kant is that “all rational beings exist as ends in themselves. As end in themselves,
human beings have value that is absolute and unconditional” (Clark & Poortenga 2003:69). Thus, human persons are
the ends or the goals by which the categorical imperative serves. Thus, the second formulation goes: So act so as to
treat humanity whether in your own person or that of any other always as an end and never as means only.

Kant’s own argument in support of this particular principle goes:

In valuing anything, I endow it with value; it can have no value apart from someone’s valuing it. As a
valued object, it has conditional worth, which is derived from my valuation. On the other hand, the person
who values the object and as such belongs to a different sphere of beings. We, as valuers, must
conceive of ourselves as having unconditioned worth. We cannot think of our personhood as a mere
thing, for then we would have to judge it to be without any value except that given to it by the estimation
of someone else. But then that person would be 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 unconditioned worth and so must treat all such such-givers as value in
themselves – as end, not merely means. (As quoted in Pojman 2005:154)

This means that as persons with absolute and unconditional dignity and value, everyone should be
treated with utmost respect. Persons are not instruments or tools that are to be used to further one’s interests. We
cannot use people to achieve our own goals and happiness. As we have just said, by virtue of their rationality, people
can decide for themselves. They can direct their own actions and thus determine their own destiny.
Here, people’s worth is something intrinsic. They are valuable in themselves and deserve our esteem
and respect. Unlike things or objects that only have conditional value and worth (since they only have value because
people endowed them with such, and if people stop desiring them, they will be worthless), people then are the source
of all conditional value.
This means further that nobody then can give human beings their worth as persons, nor can this be
taken away without destroying their very identities. Human dignity is something that is intrinsic in us. It makes us who
we are. You take it away and the person simply ceases to be.
This particular principle may seem, at first glance, to be impractical to apply in our dealings with others in
daily affairs. It seems that we cannot help but treat others as means in several ways and in many instances.
Like for instance, in riding a jeepney to school, are we not using the other (the driver) to serve our end
(to reach our destination)? Or even on the part of the driver, is he not using us only as means to get what he wants
(money from us)?
As you might have noticed, there seems to be a serious problem here. On a closer look, however, take
note that what Kant is saying is that, we should treat others always as an end and never as means “only”.
This implies that even in a seemingly impersonal transaction, such as riding on a jeepney and thinking
only for ourselves (as we are only interested for the services that the driver provides for us), “we can easily imagine
what Kant admonishing us never to act rudely so as to treat the other merely as a thing through whom we can only
get what we want” (Lawhead 2003:480).
An important point to bear in mind on this second formulation of Kant of the categorical imperative is that
he explicitly insists we should also treat our own very selves with respect just like the way we treat others.
Obviously, Kant teaches us that we all have the moral obligation to ourselves and not just to others. It is
for this reason that Kant himself strongly considers killing oneself (suicide) as wrong and thus morally impermissible.
If, according to Kant, I opt to terminate my life for me to end my problems and pains, I am then treating
myself as though I were simply a thing to be used to achieve an end (that of relieving myself from pain and suffering
of this life). This is also very much true to those who allow themselves to be manipulated (physically or mentally) in
order to get something (think of a person using his/her body to gain money).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw

Synthesis: In a nutshell, what can deontology contribute to our lives, specifically to our moral reflection? The
answer lies in one concept: enlightenment morality. Deontology is based on the “light” of one’s own
reason when maturity and rational capacity take hold of a person’s decision-making.

REFLECTION : Reflect on this:

“Are your actions governed only by a sense of duty or is there a higher impetus for doing
so, like love?”

“The only act that is worthy to be called moral is an act that is done not out of inclination but
one that is done out of duty.”

ASSESSMENTS :

1. Case Analysis
2. Objective quiz
True or False
a. Duty Ethics is made popular by Immanuel Levinas.
b. Deontological ethics is the other name for duty ethics.
c. The motive in one’s action is given special emphasis in deontological ethics.
d. The principle of humanity essentially focuses on the respect for persons.
e. In Deontological Ethics, one is moral if one acts mainly according to his own inclinations.
f. The Universalizability Principles tells us to do the act that can be applied to everyone without exception.
g. The Categorical Imperative tells us that is morally wrong to act on a maxim that we could not will to be a
universal law.
h. Deontological ethics is essentially identified with Kant’s ethics.
i. Kant’s Good Will goes against the ethics of utilitarianism, which prioritizes the consequences that one can
achieve in acting.
3. Make a similar case on “Duty over Inclination”. (Adapted from Fernandez, 2018:149)
“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).
For instance, a student who studies only because he is afraid to fail in a particular subject (and this would
mean not being able to graduate) is not a moral person. Nor the reason for studying is that he is merely inclined
to.

ASSIGNMENTS :
 Answer the following: (Choose only two at your convenience.)

1. Make a list of your particular duties (i.e. as a daughter, son, student, citizen, etc.) that you consider to be
“absolute”. Point out the specific reasons why you have to obey them “exactly” aside from simply obeying
them (for obedience’s sake).
2. Apply the principle of universalizability to determine whether the act of cheating during examination is right or
wrong. Show the logical implications if the act of cheating becomes a universal law, that is - everyone should
cheat during exam (and thus, everyone is compelled to do so.)
3. Cite a particular situation where two conflicting duties or obligations are present. Which one of these two
opposing duties do you think should be followed given the situation?
4. Why is killing oneself (suicide) morally wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative?

“Kant teaches us that we all have the moral obligation to ourselves and not just to others. It is for this reason that
Kant himself strongly considers killing oneself (suicide) as wrong and thus morally impermissible”.

RESOURCES: Fernandez, Apolinar, et. al. 2018. Ethics: Deciding What’s Right and Wrong. SMKC
Printshoppe. Davao City.
Gallinero, Winston, et. al. 2018. Ethics. Mutya Publishing House, Inc. Malabon City.
Ocampo, Ma. Liza Ruth. 2018. Ethics Primer: A Young Person’s Guide to Moral
Reasoning. Vibal Group, Inc. Davao City.
Pasco, Marc Oliver, et. al. 2018. Ethics. C & E Publishing, Inc. Quezon City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw