 Deontology

Deontology came from the Greek word “deon,” which means ‘duty’ or responsibility.
Deontological theories assert that the morality of an action depends on its intrinsic nature, its motives, or
its rules or principles and not on its consequences.

Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are
sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of
our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called non-consequentialist since these principles are
obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong
to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings.

6.1. Immanuel Kant

An example of a deontological ethics is the Kantian ethics, giving more preference on the
performance of duty and intention of the act rather than its consequences.

In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant propounds that a person who
fruitfully resists the temptation of desire has willpower (willpower means a combination of determination
and self-discipline that enables somebody to do something despite the difficulties involved) while the
individual who gives in and acts to satisfy the desire does not have willpower.

          This concept of willpower brings to mind the following model of human action: The agent begins
with a group of beliefs and desires that are motives or reasons to action.  Motives to action are like forces
that get the body into action.  The agent, however, must (or at least should) evaluate the desires to
determine whether they should or shouldn’t be satisfied.  The agent’s reason acts as the evaluator.  When
reason acts as evaluator, reason is also considered governor, because it is the last thing that determines the
will (will means the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things; the use of the
mind to make decisions about things; the determination to do something or a desire or inclination to do
something), which in turn determines action. Before a particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the
act of willing to attempt to satisfy the desire must first exist.   The agent needs to choose or decide to
either act or not act on the desire. Only then does the body act.  Hence, we could imagine human action
schematically in the following manner:

Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to

satisfy desire (deciAion) → Action to satisfy desire.
          In any event that reason is not acting as evaluator, the model turns into something like this:
Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire
  (decision) → Action to satisfy desire.
          Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires often conflict. There are instances that acting to satisfy
one desire will ensure that we cannot satisfy another desire. Let us say for example that you have the
desire to go out with friends this coming Saturday to dance and party.  Satisfying now this desire would
mean sacrificing your other desire to jump to bed early and maximize the highly recommended hours of
sleep of 7 to 8 hours a day.  Take again for example the given situation, you have the desire to play
DOTA or to have an EB with someone else you have been chatting lately over the net after your class this
afternoon; however, you also have the desire to read something about Immanuel Kant’s life so that you
will not be getting a failing score in your quiz in this subject next meeting.   In such instances where we
have with us conflicting desires, we must decide which desire to satisfy.
          As rational individuals, it is expected on our part that we have to let our reason decide between
conflicting desires (but sometimes, as individuals with organic or earthly bodies with organic or earthly
desires and needs, we oftentimes find ourselves consumed in satisfying our base desires. I am not saying
this as an excuse but we should at least now how to master our desires as rational individuals…I hope you
still remember “the mark of virtue” of Aristotle).  No particular action will be done until our will has been
activated.  Hence, our will is considered to be the master of our actions.  According to Immanuel Kant, if
we are rational, then our will must not be the slave of our desires by merely doing the request or
command of our desires.  Our will instead can cooperate with our reason to master whatever desires we
have.

        The only thing that is good without or restriction is a good will. A good will alone is good
in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute good or unconditioned good.   The
goodness of a good will is not derived from the goodness of the results which it produces.   A
good will continues to have its own uniqueness goodness even where, by some misfortune, it is
unable to produce the results at which it aims. As Kant would say in the  Groundwork, “it
would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself”
(see your reading for further emphasis on this point of Kant on the good will and its result).

        In going further with his discussion on the good will, Kant in the  Groundwork tried to
discuss the function of reason.  According to Kant, reason has been imparted to us as a
practical power─that is, as one which is to have influence on the will; the true function of
reason must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some further end, but in
itself….(see your reading for further emphasis on this point of Kant on the function of
reason).  For Kant, reason in action has for him two main functions, the first of which has to be
subordinated to the second.  The first function is to secure the individual’s own happiness (a
conditioned good), while the second is to manifest a will that is good in itself.

        However, despite these discussions made by Kant, a question comes to mind─that is, if
one thing that is good without qualifications is a good will, then what makes will good and
what makes it bad?

Kant was a supporter of what we have called commonsense morality. He thought that the moral
views common to most people are pretty much correct. Therefore, he would think that a person
with a good will would not commit major moral offenses such as murder or robbery, would not
commit minor moral offenses such as maliciously gossiping about people, and would help
people in need.

        Kant took these things for granted. But he recognized that a person might have a good
will and not to be able to actually do any of the things a good person would do, or refrain from
doing the things a good person would not do, similarly, someone might do all the things that a
good person would do and refrain from doing all the things that a good person would not do,
and yet not have a good will. For example, someone may contribute to charity only because it’s
in his self-interest, perhaps a politician who believes that he will gain votes by (publicly)
contributing to charity. Kant does not think that his contributing money shows that he has a
good will.

        What about performing actions that normally would be considered an indication that
someone lacks a good will? Suppose someone acts n a way that is deeply offensive or insulting
to someone else. Would that necessarily show that he or she lacks a good will? No- not if he or
she did not intent to offensive or insulting.
        Kant points out that we cannot tell whether someone has a good will by looking only at
what that person does or does not do, or only at the effects or consequences of his
actions. One’s intentions are the key to whether one has good will.  It is what one wants to
accomplish – what one wills – that counts (for the Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, it
is the consequence of the act that counts while for Immanuel Kant, it is not the consequence of
the act that counts but the intention of the person doing the act). A person has a good will if he
or she tries to do what is right and tries to avoid doing what is wrong. But the  trying must be a
genuine trying a summoning of all one’s capacities to work hard toward doing what is right and
to refrain from doing what’s wrong (if by this time you now have in mind this question of what
is right and what is wrong, then such question will be answered as we proceed with our
discussion).

        Kant says that the concept of duty contains the concepts of a good will but it probably
would be more accurate to say that the concept of a good will entails the concept of duty (a
duty is an obligation of behavior or conduct in relation to others or even to God which has a
stronger claim on a person than (he)r self-interest). One has a good will if one tries to do one’s
duty. But Kant emphasized that for a will to be truly good, it must try to do its duty from
purely moral motive, rather than from a self-interested movie. The purely moral motive is the
desire to do one’s duty out of respect for the moral law. A person with a good will respects the
moral law and tries to act dutifully because he or she desires to act in ways that conform to
what (he)r duties are.

        In introducing the concept of duty, Kant came up with 3 propositions about morality
rooted on duty:

(1) A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate
inclination─still less because it is done from self-interest─but because it is done for the sake of
duty (Consider the implication of this situation, what if for example in this particular room at
around 7 pm in the evening, I saw you desperately in need for immediate medical attention but
then the problem is I am not disposed this time to help; likewise, I have a business deal to
attend to at 7:15 pm to have this 4 million pesos account deal to be safely deposited to my
account.);

(2) An action done from duty has moral worth, not from the results   it attains or seeks
to attain, but from a formal principle or maxim─the principle of doing one’s duty whatever that
duty may be (This simply re-states the first proposition in a more technical way.   We  have
already seen that a good will cannot derive its unconditioned goodness from the conditioned
goodness of the results at which it aims, and this is true also of the morally good actions in
which a good will acting for the sake of duty is manifested.);

(3) Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law (What is this law? This law
speaks a a law which is valid for all rational beings as such independently of their particular
desires. This law is better understood with the Categorical Imperative of Kant as a test of
maxim by helping us evaluate whether or not a maxim is possible to become a universal law.).

ACTIONS AND MAXIMS

Kant believed that people acts as they do for the reason (whether or not they are
immediately conscious of the reason or engage in deliberation before acting). For example,
suppose that Marc and Andrew each contribute PHP 100,000 to charity. According to Kant,
each has a reason for his or her action. Let’s assume that we know their reasons. Marc
approves of the goals of the charity and wants to help in accomplishing its goals.   Andrew
knows that the names of large contributors will be publicized; he wants to impress his business
associates and customers, which he thinks will improve his business.

Kant believed that when people act for a reason, they’re following a maxim – a kind of
personal rule of action. Of course, people do not always consciously formulate maximum and
then deliberately follow them. Rather, people often act as though they formulate and follow
maxims. However, Kant seemed to assume that we can discover what maxim will follow, even
if we did not consciously formulate and follow it. Given Marc and Andrew's reasons for
contributing to charity, we might express the maxims they were following as M1 (Marc’s
Maxim) and M2 (Adrew’s maxim.)

M1. I will contribute to charity when I approved of the Charity’s goal, and I want to
help it achieve its purpose.
M2. I will contribute to charity when I think that doing so will help improve my
business and I want to improve my business.

A maxim takes the form “I will do action X in circumstances C for purpose P.”  It is a
personal principal of action, a kind of prescription of how a person will act in certain
circumstances to achieve what he or she wants. Thus, a maxim must specify: (1) what I will do,
(2) the concrete circumstances in which I will do it, and (3) why I will do it.

According to Kant, an action done from duty has moral worth based only on the maxim
that the agent follows, which specified the action, the circumstances and the motive. But surely
an action cannot have moral worth if the agent is following a bad maxim, such as “I will kill
people whenever it is advantageous to me.” Presumably an action has moral worth if and only
if the maxim being followed is a morally acceptable maxim. But what makes a maxim morally
acceptable or morally unacceptable?

Before turning to this question, however, let us reflect a bit more on the maxims and
behavior of Marc and Andrew. Did Marc or Andrew do anything wrong in contributing to
charity? If they were following morally unacceptable maxims, then they were doing something
wrong, but if they were following morally acceptable maxims, they were not doing anything
wrong. Whether they did anything wrong, then it all depends on whether their maxims are
morally acceptable. Surely neither did anything wrong. However, Kant would say that
Andrew’s action lacked moral worth because the maxim he followed was purely self-interested.
(Lacking moral worth, their actions do not merit praise; but it does not follow that because
they lack moral worth, they merit condemnation instead) so once again, we face the task of
distinguishing between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable maxims.

Thus, whether we are talking about the moral worth of actions or the rightness and
wrongness of actions, we need to distinguish between morally acceptable and morally
unacceptable maxims. We require a test of maxims that will enable us to distinguish between
those that are and those that are not morally acceptable to act on.

Kant did not think that we need to invent a totally new test to determine the rightness
and wrongness of maxims. He believed that there is a test that most ordinary people apply and
that has been endorsed by most of the world’s major religions, including Christianity.   This test
is the so-called Golden Rule: Treat people the way you want to be treated. However,  he did
think that the Gold Rule needed to be made more precise in order to be applied correctly. He
called his reformulation of the Golden Rule the Categorical Imperative. It’s
an imperative because it takes the form of a rule. It’s categorical because it applies in all
circumstances, regardless of an agents’ desires and because it binds all rational agents.

5 FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

(1) The Formula of Universality  or the Principle of Universal Law  

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be come a universal
law."

(2) The Formula of the Law of Nature

"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a universal law of nature without
contradiction."

(3) The Respect for People Formulation or The Principle of an 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."

(4) The Formula on Autonomy or The Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will as Rational Agents)
"So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxim."

(5) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

"So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends."

Can your maxim be universalized without contradiction?

Can your maxim show respect to yourself as a person and to other persons as well?

If your answer is NO, then your maxim cannot become a moral law.
In the application of the rule on contradiction, you have to consider if in the process your happiness or
your own survival or existence or humanity's survival would be at sake or compromised. At this point, it
is important to point out that for Immanuel Kant, committing suicide to escape the challenges and
sufferings in life is not morally acceptable because this maxim can never be universalized without
contradiction aside from the fact that committing suicide will not also show respect to oneself as a person
since the self is sacrificed to achieve an end which is to run away from those challenges and sufferings.

Take note that in the kingdom or in the World of Ends, one has either a price or a dignity or
intrinsic value or unconditioned value. If it has a price, then something else can be put in its place as
equivalent. If it is exalted above all price and so admits of no equivalent, then it has a dignity.

Autonomy or Freedom is the ground or the cornerstone of the dignity of human nature and of
every rational nature. Dignity must be viewed as the result of people who are free and autonomous moral
and rational agents mutually respecting each other.  

Note: The discussion on Kant’s ethics is simply taken and/or copied from attorney’s blog,
Mark Gil J. Ramolete, (August 17, 2013). “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,” Law and
Philosophy. Accessed from
https://law-and-philosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/groundwork-of-metaphysic-of-morals.html?
m=1&fbclid=IwAR147f5LzGM8KAjEhE8BE2BCP14_RbOyurXZI9pELejDcuTyJAPITtlaxYg