Republic of the Philippines

CAMARINES NORTE STATE COLLEGE

F. Pimentel Avenue, Brgy. 2, Daet, Camarines Norte

GRADUATE SCHOOL
PA 214 – Public Ethics and Social Responsibility
Second Semester, AY 2021-2022
Research Paper

Name: Eric John R. Nemi Score: ___________

Course/Year/Level/Block/Section: MPA 1 Date: November 5, 2022
DEONTOLOGY

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from

wrong. Deontology is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant
believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie.  Don’t
steal.  Don’t cheat.”
Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and
do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or
isn’t ethical.
Deontology is a system of ethical analysis, most closely associated with
Immanuel Kant, that bases the correctness of one’s actions on fulfilling the duties of
the actor (Alexander and Moore, 2008). Thus, individuals have moral obligations to
others and, if they fulfill those obligations, they are acting ethically; if they do not,
they are acting unethically. Among the major challenges of deontology is to
determine the basis of one’s duties and the nature of one’s duties. Religious ethics
typically is deontological. For example, the 10 commandments of the Old Testament
define both specific duties all persons are expected to fulfill and also the basis for the
duties – i.e., the commandments of an almighty deity. Thus, for persons who are
committed to a particular religious tradition, their ethical duties are often defined by
that tradition. However, for those who do not subscribe to that tradition, those duties
may not be perceived as binding. Furthermore, in a pluralistic secular society, no one
religious perspective is likely to be endorsed by all individuals. Therefore, religiously
based deontology cannot provide a common framework for such a society’s ethics.
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον,
'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of
an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a
series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the
action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based
ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue
ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the
consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialized
definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory. Older
usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as
a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement). The more
general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de
déontologie (ethical code), in the context of professional ethics.
Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a moral
obligation may arise from an external or internal source, such as a set of rules
inherent to the universe (ethical naturalism), religious law, or a set of personal or
cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal desires).

Deontological philosophies
There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

Kantianism
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 (Pflicht). 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:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly
be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.
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 he "acts out of respect for the
moral law." People "act out of respect for the moral law" when they act in some
way because they have a duty to do so. Thus, the only thing that is truly good in itself
is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something
because it is that person's duty, i.e. out of respect for the law. He defines respect as
"the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."
Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative 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; and
 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.
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. If God
commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would
be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to
succeed or do well.
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 of prima facie duties determining what is right. Some duties originate from
our own previous actions, like the duty of fidelity (to keep promises and to tell the
truth), and the duty of reparation (to make amends for wrongful acts). The duty of
gratitude (to return kindnesses received) arises from the actions of others. Other
duties include 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) and 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.   Ross makes use of the distinction between prima facie
duties and absolute duty to solve this problem.  The duties listed above are prima
facie duties; they are general principles whose validity is self-evident to morally
mature persons. They are factors that do not take all considerations into
account. Absolute duty, on the other hand, is particular to one specific situation,
taking everything into account, and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It
is absolute duty that determines which acts are right or wrong.
Contemporary Deontology

Contemporary deontologists (i.e., scholars born in the first half of the 20th

century) include Józef Maria Bocheński, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Roger
Scruton.
Bocheński (1965) makes a distinction between deontic and epistemic authority:
 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.
 An example of deontic authority would be "the relation between an employer
and her employee." An employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an
order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its
reliability or appropriateness.
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. He implies that proportional duty and obligation are
essential components of the ways in which we decide to act, and he defends natural
law against opposing theories. He also expresses admiration for virtue ethics, and
believes that the two ethical theories are not, as is frequently portrayed, mutually
exclusive.
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. Theories put
forth by Thomas Nagel and Michael S. Moore attempt to reconcile deontology with
consequentialism by assigning each a jurisdiction. Iain King's 2008 book How to
Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time uses quasi-realism and a modified
form of utilitarianism to develop deontological principles that are compatible with
ethics based on virtues and consequences. King develops a hierarchy of principles
to link his meta-ethics, which is more inclined towards consequentialism, with the
deontological conclusions he presents in his book.
Secular Deontology
Intuition-based deontology is a concept within secular ethics. A classical
example of literature on secular ethics is the Kural text, authored by the
ancient Tamil Indian philosopher Valluvar. It can be argued that some concepts from
deontological ethics date back to this text. Concerning ethical intuitionism, 20th
century philosopher C.D. Broad coined the term "deontological ethics" to refer to the
normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical
intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.