Reporter:

- Good evening everyone!

- I’m from the Group 6, and I’ll be discussing our assigned topic, entitled
- “Deontological ethics”
- In the realm of ethics, one timeless and compelling approach is deontological ethics.
- In this report, we will delve into the fundamental principles of deontological ethics,
examining its core tenets, key proponents, and real-world applications.
- Let’s explore the moral landscape guided by duty and principles, shedding light on its
enduring relevance in contemporary ethical discussions.

READ WHAT’S IN THE PPT AND EXPLAIN!!!

Reporter:
I. Historical Origin
- The historical origin of this moral theory can be traced back to early human civilization,
- In the time of Chief or king
- The Word coming from the king - given unconditionally, without appeal on the basis of
consequences
- Or the Commands - are taken without questions or objections
- Then, giving it rise to the moral theory - the deontological ethics
- Deontological → came from the Greek root word “dein” or “deon” meaning “To be
obligated” or simply “duty”
- “The word Obedience is strictly intensified, it is something absolute or categorical.”
- Where it is a Moral duty to obey certain principles or rules is unconditional and
applies in all situations, without exception
Reporter:
II. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
- Where Immanuel Kant, proposed that moral actions should be guided by categorical
imperatives –the universal rules that one must follow unconditionally

- What are universal moral laws → are fundamental ethical principles that apply to all
people and cultures, outlining what is considered right or wrong regardless of individual
beliefs or societal norms.
- These laws provide a universal standard for ethical behavior and often include principles
like honesty, fairness, and respect for others.
- Universal moral laws are often associated with deontological ethics, which emphasizes
duties, obligations, and moral rules that should be followed irrespective of the
consequences
- Examples of universal moral laws include prohibitions against murder, steal (Robin
hood), and dishonesty (Pinocchio and Bad genius ), as well as principles like "treat
others as you would like to be treated" ( or the Golden Rule).

- According to Kant, Moral actions should be guided by intrinsic principles and duties,
rather than contingent on consequences.
 - He argued that ethical decisions should be based on the categorical imperative, a
universal and rational moral framework that emphasizes duty and the inherent worth of
individuals.
-

Reporter:
III. Kant’s view of “duty” on moral laws
- In deontological ethics, the moral rightness of an action is determined by one's duty or
obligation to follow certain moral principles, regardless of personal desires or outcomes.
It asserts that individuals should act in accordance with their moral duties, even when
those duties conflict with their own interests.

- Deontological ethics prioritizes adhering to duty-based principles above pursuing one's

personal desires or interests. These principles, often universalizable, are meant to apply
consistently to everyone, forming a common moral framework that transcends individual
preferences.

- Deontological ethics regards moral laws as inherently binding and not contingent on the
potential consequences of actions. It highlights the absolute nature of moral duties,
emphasizing that certain actions are morally required or prohibited regardless of the
outcomes they produce.

(Example)
- Suppose you've made a promise to help a friend move to a new apartment on a
particular day. You've given your word, and your friend relies on your assistance.
However, on the day of the move, an unexpected job offer with a substantial salary
increase comes your way, but it requires you to work on the same day as the move.
-
- Explanation: In this scenario, deontological ethics would argue that the moral law of
keeping promises is an absolute and binding principle, and your duty to fulfill that
promise remains irrespective of the external consequences, such as the financial gain
from the job offer. The emphasis is on the inherent moral value of keeping one's word
and upholding commitments.
-
Reporter:
IV. The Goodwill: The Heart of Kant’s Ethics
- In deontological ethics, what makes an action morally right or wrong is primarily the
person's intention or motive when performing it. It suggests that good intentions,
grounded in duty and moral principles, are more important than the actual outcomes of
the action
 - Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics places utmost significance on the concept of a”
good will." This means that acting out of a sense of duty and a genuine commitment to
moral principles, regardless of self-interest or consequences, is the core foundation of
moral actions in his philosophy.

- Individuals are expected to fulfill their moral duties out of a profound respect for the
moral principles themselves. This means that one's commitment to duty should be free
from personal gain or external incentives, driven solely by a deep reverence for the
inherent value of moral laws

Reporter:
V. Utilitarianism vs Deontology
- Utilitarian (The end justifies the means)
- If the end result or outcome is good or leads to the greatest overall happiness,
then the means used to achieve that end can be justified, even if those means
may be ethically questionable.
- In the case of the death penalty, a utilitarian might support it if they believe it
leads to a safer society or serves as a deterrent to crime because they see the
end result as justifying the means, which involves taking a person's life.
- Deontologist (The end does not justify the means)
- Some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences they
produce.
- In the case of the death penalty, a deontologist might argue that it is wrong to
intentionally take a human life, regardless of the potential benefits, because they
believe the act itself is morally unacceptable.

Reporter
VI. Morality on Duty
- Maxims are personal and may vary from one individual to another. What one person
considers a morally acceptable maxim, another person might not.
- A maxim is considered morally permissible if it can be consistently willed as a universal
law without creating logical contradictions or absurdities. If a maxim passes this test, it is
considered morally acceptable; if it fails, it is considered morally impermissible.
- For example, if someone has the maxim "I will lie whenever it benefits me," applying the
Categorical Imperative would reveal a contradiction. Because lying was not a universal
law, trust would prosper, and lying would become effective.

- Motive or intention → An indifferent act can be morally good or morally evil depending
upon the intention of the person doing the act. In the case of the maxim above, the
reason might be "because lying undermines trust in relationships."
Reporter
VII. Duty over Inclination, superior to Happiness
- (Example 1) Suppose you're a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is
about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch,
 but breaking into any software system without permission is against your professional
code of ethics. And it's a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises upholding these
rules. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die.

- In this ethical dilemma, deontology, a duty-based ethical framework, advises upholding

the professional code of ethics, which prohibits hacking without permission and
categorizes it as lying and cheating. This duty reflects a commitment to principles and
rules regardless of the consequences. However, the inclination to prevent the missile
launch arises from a deep sense of moral responsibility to prevent harm and save lives,
creating a tension between duty and the natural inclination to protect human life.

- (Example 2) Parents frequently make sacrifices for the well-being and upbringing of their
children. This may include sacrificing personal time, career opportunities, or financial
gain. Their duty to provide a nurturing and supportive environment for their children
takes precedence over their own happiness. These examples are where individuals
prioritize their moral or ethical responsibilities, even when it may conflict with their
personal happiness or immediate self-interest.

VIII. Categorical Imperative

- Categorical Imperative → a fundamental concept in deontological ethics, introduced by
philosopher Immanuel Kant. It is a moral principle that instructs individuals to act
according to rules or maxims that could be universally applied without contradiction. In
other words, one should only act in a way that they could will everyone else to act in a
similar situation, without causing logical inconsistencies or contradictions.

IX. Principle of Universalizability

- Individuals should refrain from actions that, if everyone were to engage in them
simultaneously, would lead to moral chaos or logical contradictions. For example, lying
cannot be universalized because a world where everyone lies all the time would break
trust and render communication meaningless.

- Individuals should act in ways that they can consistently imagine as a moral rule
applicable to everyone. This principle helps ensure that one's actions adhere to universal
moral standards, preventing actions that would be morally problematic if universally
practiced. (Example) For instance, killing cannot be universalized since all humans are
guided by their maxim that killing is immoral and it has been universalized that we
shouldn't kill.

X. Principle of Humanity/Ends
- Individuals should not be treated as mere tools or instruments to achieve someone
else's goals or desires. Instead, each person possesses intrinsic worth and should be
acknowledged as having their own value, independent of their utility to others. This
 principle conveys the idea that people should never be used or exploited solely for the
benefit of others

- In our actions and interactions, we should always consider the well-being and autonomy
of each person, avoiding any actions that reduce them to mere tools for our purposes.
This principle guides ethical behavior by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and
valuing humanity in every individual
- Man is not a means to an end; he is and end in himself

- (Example) Riding a jeepney and thinking for ourselves because we are only interested in
the service that the driver provides.
- We should also treat our very selves with respect, just like the way we treat others. To
put it simply "love your neighbor as you love yourself”

Additonal Notes

Here's a simplified view of how duties are determined in deontological ethics:

Formulate a Maxim: When faced with a moral decision, an individual formulates a maxim,
which is a personal principle or rule describing the intention behind their action in that particular
situation. For example, "I will not lie."

Apply the Categorical Imperative: The individual then tests their maxim using Kant's
Categorical Imperative, which involves evaluating whether the maxim can be consistently willed
as a universal law without leading to logical contradictions or absurdities.

Determine Duty: If the maxim passes this test, it becomes a moral duty. It is considered morally
permissible and should guide the individual's actions in similar situations.

PART 2

XI. Autonomy of the Will

- Personal autonomy, the ability to make independent and rational choices, is a
fundamental prerequisite for the existence of morality. Without the capacity to make
decisions based on one's own values and principles, individuals would be unable to
 engage in moral reasoning and ethical behavior, as they would lack the agency
necessary to act in accordance with moral principles.
- No one uses anyone to serve or further his or her ends

- (Example) In a financial transaction, an individual chooses not to engage in deceptive

practices, such as falsifying documents or misrepresenting facts, even when facing
financial hardship, because they believe it's their moral duty to be honest and uphold the
principle of truthfulness.
- .this scenario exemplifies autonomy of the will because the individual makes a moral
choice to be honest based on their own rational judgment and moral principles, even
when faced with financial hardship and temptations to engage in deceptive practices.
Their decision reflects their capacity to act autonomously in accordance with their moral
duties and principles.
-

XII. Trolly Problem

- In the trolley problem, you are faced with a moral dilemma: a runaway trolley is headed
towards five people tied up and unable to move, and you have the option to divert the
trolley onto another track, but doing so will result in the death of one person tied up on
that track.

Applying deontological ethics

- Universalizability: Applying the categorical imperative, you can ask whether your action
of pulling the lever to divert the trolley can be consistently willed as a universal law. In
this case, you might ask whether it would be morally acceptable for everyone to divert a
trolley to save multiple lives at the expense of one life. Deontologists would argue that it
could not be consistently willed as a universal law because it violates the duty to
preserve life.

- Duty to Avoid Harming Others: Another deontological principle is the duty to avoid
causing harm to others. Pulling the lever would cause harm to the one person on the
alternative track, which could be seen as a violation of this duty.

- Based on these deontological principles, a strict deontologist might argue that you
should not pull the lever to divert the trolley. Instead, they would argue that your duty is
to refrain from directly causing harm to others, even if it means allowing a greater
number of people to be harmed by the trolley. In this view, the consequences are not the
primary concern; it's the adherence to moral duties and principles that matter.
-
-
XIII. Madman scenario
 PART 2
XIV. Autonomy of the Will
- Personal autonomy, the ability to make independent and rational choices, is a
fundamental prerequisite for the existence of morality. Without the capacity to make
decisions based on one's own values and principles, individuals would be unable to
engage in moral reasoning and ethical behavior, as they would lack the agency
necessary to act in accordance with moral principles.
-

- (Example) In a financial transaction, an individual chooses not to engage in deceptive

practices, such as falsifying documents or misrepresenting facts, even when facing
financial hardship, because No one uses anyone to serve or further his or her ends
- they believe it's their moral duty to be honest and uphold the principle of truthfulness.

- This scenario exemplifies autonomy of the will because the individual makes a moral
choice to be honest based on their own rational judgment and moral principles, even
when faced with financial hardship and temptations to engage in deceptive practices.
Their decision reflects their capacity to act autonomously in accordance with their moral
duties and principles.

XV. Trolly Problem

- In the trolley problem, you are faced with a moral dilemma: a runaway trolley is headed
towards five people tied up and unable to move, and you have the option to divert the
trolley onto another track, but doing so will result in the death of one person tied up on
that track.
Applying deontological ethics

- Universalizability: Applying the categorical imperative, you can ask whether your action
of pulling the lever to divert the trolley can be consistently willed as a universal law. In
this case, you might ask whether it would be morally acceptable for everyone to divert a
trolley to save multiple lives at the expense of one life. Deontologists would argue that it
could not be consistently willed as a universal law because it violates the duty to
preserve life.

- Duty to Avoid Harming Others: Another deontological principle is the duty to avoid
causing harm to others. Pulling the lever would cause harm to the one person on the
alternative track, which could be seen as a violation of this duty.

- Based on these deontological principles, a strict deontologist might argue that you
should not pull the lever to divert the trolley. Instead, they would argue that your duty is
to refrain from directly causing harm to others, even if it means allowing a greater
number of people to be harmed by the trolley. In this view, the consequences are not the
primary concern; it's the adherence to moral duties and principles that matter.
-
-
Madman Theory
- Madman scenario
- There's a madman knocking on your door, asking where your husband is because he will
kill him
- Should you lie or not? The maxim there is: "I will lie in order to save my husband”
- Universalize
- Evira/wife will be responsible for tony’s death because her lie caused it. Had she said the
truth, only the murder would have been responsible for any deaths that might occur.
-

Reporter:
IX. Strengths

● Emphasis on intrinsic human worth

- Kant reminds us that in a world focused on external factors like wealth and popularity, a
person's true worth lies in their inner qualities and dignity. For instance, kindness and
respect matter more than possessions or looks. Kant emphasizes that what you are as a
person is more important than what you have.

Example: Consider two individuals, Art and Bob. Art is known for his kindness and respect
towards others, while Bob primarily focuses on flaunting his wealth and possessions. When
faced with a challenge, Art's inner qualities shine through, making her more admired and
respected by her peers, while Bob's materialism diminishes his worth as a person in their eyes.
 ● Prioritizes good motives and intentions
- Kant values good intentions over actions. A person with a good will always intends well
and can be trusted not to harm others. The true "good person" is someone with a good
will.

Ex: Imagine a person named Sarah who is facing a moral dilemma. She has promised to meet
her friend John for lunch, but on the same day, her boss assigns her an urgent project with a
tight deadline. Sarah knows that if she cancels on John, he will be disappointed and
inconvenienced. However, if she doesn't complete the project on time, it could have serious
consequences for her job and the company.

In a deontological framework that prioritizes good motives and intentions, Sarah would consider
her intentions and motives when making her decision. If she genuinely values her friendship
with John and does not want to disappoint him, and if she also has a sincere commitment to her
job and the responsibility her boss has entrusted her with, her decision would be guided by
these good intentions.

● Focuses on universal moral actions, not just consequences

- Kant's moral philosophy focuses on the intention behind actions rather than the
uncertain consequences. This approach gives individuals more control over their
morality because predicting outcomes can be unreliable. We often think we're doing the
right thing based on expected consequences, but sometimes things go wrong, causing
tragedy for ourselves and others. Kant's emphasis on intention provides a more reliable
moral guide.

Ex: Suppose there is a firefighter named Mark who is tasked with rescuing people from a
burning building. In the process, he comes across a room where two people are trapped: a child
and an elderly person. Mark can only save one of them because of the intensity of the fire, and
he must make a quick decision.

From a deontological perspective that emphasizes moral actions, Mark would base his decision
on his duty and moral principles rather than just the potential consequences.

● Recognizes obligations to both self and others

- Kant's discussion of duties reminds us that our moral obligations extend to both others
and ourselves. Traditional morality often emphasizes our duties to others, but Kant
broadens this by highlighting the importance of our moral responsibilities to ourselves.
Loving and caring for oneself is crucial because we can't effectively care for others if we
neglect our own well-being.
Ex: Imagine a scenario where a person named Alex is facing a moral dilemma. Alex has been
working long hours at their job and is feeling overwhelmed and exhausted. However, a close
friend, Sarah, is going through a difficult time and needs emotional support. Sarah has been
there for Alex in the past when they were going through tough times.

In a deontological framework that recognizes obligations to both self and others, Alex would
consider their duties and moral obligations to both themselves and their friend

● Grounded in universal reason and metaphysical foundations

- Kant's ethics values reason as the foundation of morality, providing a universal and
impartial guide. Unlike relying on cultural norms or fleeting emotions, Kant's approach
offers solid, metaphysical grounding (about looking for the most fundamental explanation
or reason that supports something) for moral decisions.

Ex: Consider the principle of "do not kill" as a fundamental moral rule within a deontological
framework. This principle is often rooted in universal reason and metaphysical foundations, as it
posits that taking another person's life is inherently wrong, regardless of the context.

● Solves the problem of justice and fairness

- Kant's ethics addresses justice and fairness by prohibiting actions like stealing, lying,
and murder, even if they might lead to positive outcomes. His categorical imperative
emphasizes doing what is right or good, regardless of consequences, avoiding the
pitfalls of utilitarianism, which prioritizes outcomes over ethical principles.
Ex: Imagine a society in which there is a debate over whether to implement a policy that
provides financial assistance to underprivileged individuals. Some argue that this policy is
necessary to address economic inequalities and promote fairness, while others contend that it is
unjust because it involves taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those
who have not.
In a deontological framework, one might approach this problem by considering the principles of
justice and fairness as inherent moral duties.

● Appeals to common sense and moral intuition

- Kant's universalizability principle, similar to the Golden Rule, aligns with common sense
and our everyday moral intuition. A good moral theory should resonate with our inherent
sense of what is right and wrong, and Kant's principle passes this test by promoting
actions that we believe should apply universally.
Example: Imagine someone is about to steal your bicycle. Kant's universalizability principle
aligns with common sense because if everyone were allowed to steal bicycles, it would lead to
chaos and nobody could trust that their property would be safe. This resonates with our
everyday moral intuition, which tells us that stealing is wrong because it violates the principle of
treating others as we would want to be treated.
● Has universal application
 - Kant's principle of universalizability, which can be turned into a guiding maxim applicable
universally, aligns with the mark of a good ethical theory. It offers a clear and universal
moral guideline that can be applied to all situations, making it a robust framework for
ethical decision-making.
Example: A patient lying to their doctor about their symptoms can lead to a misdiagnosis and
potential harm. If everyone constantly lied, trust would break down completely. Kant's principle
of universalizability provides a clear and universal moral guideline: lying is wrong because a
world where everyone lies would be unlivable due to the lack of trust. This aligns with the mark
of a good ethical theory, as it offers a practical and universally applicable framework for ethical
decision-making.

● Emphasizes autonomy
- Kant's emphasis on autonomy challenges today's generation to rely on their inner
convictions and do what is morally right because it's right, rather than simply conforming
to popular opinion. It calls for independent moral agency and resisting the pressure to
follow the crowd blindly.
Example:Imagine Sarah's friends pressure her to cheat on a test. Kant's emphasis on autonomy
would advise Sarah to trust her own moral judgment and refuse to cheat, showing independent
moral agency by not blindly following the crowd's unethical behavior.
● Empowers individuals as moral agents
- Kant's ethical philosophy underscores the importance of human freedom and rationality
in determining what is genuinely good for us. It empowers us as moral agents who
create, judge, and promote morality. This belief in reason and autonomy allows us to
reclaim our inherent dignity and worth, asserting control over our destinies and becoming
the captains of our own lives.
-
Example: Kant's philosophy encourages individuals like Lisa to use reason and autonomy when
making moral decisions in their personal and professional life. For instance, when facing an
ethical dilemma at work, Lisa relies on her own rational judgment to make choices aligned with
her principles, taking control of her destiny and asserting her moral agency.

X. Weaknesses
● Neglects consequences, potentially promoting irresponsible behavior
- Critics argue that Kant's moral theory is problematic because it appears to disregard the
consequences of actions and focuses solely on intention. They suggest that a morally
sound ethical theory should consider both intention and the likely consequences of our
actions, as complete indifference to what happens to others is morally unacceptable.
Ex: Imagine a situation where a doctor adheres strictly to the deontological principle of patient
confidentiality. According to this principle, a doctor must never reveal any information about a
patient to anyone, even if it is in the best interest of the patient or the broader society.
The deontological adherence to patient confidentiality neglects the potentially disastrous
consequences of not disclosing the information. It promotes an irresponsible behavior that could
result in harm to others, highlighting a situation where strict adherence to a moral rule can lead
to morally questionable outcomes. Critics argue that in such cases, a more consequentialist
approach, which considers the outcomes and consequences, might be more ethically
responsible.
 ● Kant's examples contradict his emphasis on intentions over consequences
- In Kant's example of making a false promise, he does consider the consequences on
others (if everyone made false promises). This appears inconsistent with his belief that
only good intention matters in assessing morality, as it involves an indirect consideration
of consequences. Critics argue that Kant's stance on consequences in this case seems
contradictory to his original claim that consequences should not count in any way in
morality.
Ex: In Kant's deontological ethics, lying is considered morally wrong, regardless of the
circumstances or consequences. However, consider a scenario where lying to protect an
innocent person from harm seems morally justifiable. Kant's emphasis on intentions over
consequences may contradict our common moral intuition that lying in such situations could be
the right thing to do, highlighting a tension within his ethical framework.

● Fails to provide clear guidance in situations of conflicting duties

- A significant criticism of Kant's ethics arises in situations where individuals face two
equally important duties or obligations that cannot both be fulfilled simultaneously. For
instance, when someone has made a promise to keep a secret but is then asked about it
directly, Kant's moral framework does not provide a clear resolution for this moral
dilemma. Critics argue that Kant's ethics lacks guidance in such complex situations.
Ex: In a hospital, a doctor faces a situation where they have two patients in critical condition,
each needing a unique, life-saving organ transplant. However, there's only one available organ,
and both patients have equal medical priority. The doctor is torn between their duty to save lives
(beneficence) and their duty not to harm one patient to benefit another (non-maleficence).
Deontological ethics doesn't offer clear guidance on how to prioritize these conflicting duties,
leaving the doctor in a morally complex and challenging situation.

● Strict absolute duties may not account for exceptional circumstances

- Kant's emphasis on absolute duties, like "never tell a lie," can create ethical dilemmas in
extreme situations, such as when a maniac killer is looking for their victim who is hiding
under your bed, and you are asked about their whereabouts. Kant's moral framework
doesn't easily accommodate exceptions, leading to challenges in adhering to these
moral absolutes in certain life-or-death scenarios.
Ex: In a deontological framework with strict absolute duties, stealing is considered morally
wrong under all circumstances. However, imagine a desperate individual who is starving and
steals a loaf of bread to feed their hungry family. Strict adherence to the absolute duty against
stealing may not account for the exceptional circumstances of dire need, highlighting a limitation
of deontological ethics in addressing such situations.

● Lacks a precise definition of "right" or "good," resulting in vagueness

- Critics argue that Kant's emphasis on doing what is right or good simply because it is
right or good lacks specificity, leaving us without a clear understanding of what
"goodness" or "rightness" truly means. Kant's explanation of the ground of morality can
seem circular, as it doesn't provide a concrete basis for determining what actions are
right or good in the first place.
Example: Kant's emphasis on doing what is right or good without clearly defining "goodness" or
"rightness" can lead to confusion. For instance, some people may see honesty as always good,
while others may believe that lying is justified in certain situations. Kant's philosophy doesn't
offer a specific basis for resolving such differences in moral interpretation.
 ● Overlooks the role of emotions and inclinations in moral actions
- Critics of Kant's moral philosophy argue that while his focus on rationality is
commendable, it overlooks the importance of emotions, feelings, and inclinations in our
daily choices. They suggest that actions guided by these facets are not inherently
immoral and that a well-rounded moral theory should consider the complexity of human
motivations, including our emotional and instinctual sides.
Example; Imagine a parent torn between working late for financial security and spending time
with their child. Kant's focus on rationality might favor work, but critics argue that considering the
emotional bond and well-being of the child is also crucial. This dilemma highlights the tension
between Kant's rational approach and the importance of emotions in ethical decisions.
-
● Fails to provide a clear principle for when universalization applies
- Critics argue that Kant's principle of universalization lacks a clear-cut rule for determining
when it should be applied and when it should not. There's uncertainty about how broadly
or narrowly to apply this principle in various moral situations, making it challenging to use
consistently in ethical decision-making.
Example: Critics argue that Kant's principle of universalization lacks clarity on when to apply it
broadly or narrowly. For instance, in deciding whether to break a promise, some interpret it
narrowly, while others apply it broadly, causing uncertainty in ethical decision-making.

● Excludes individuals with mental illness or cognitive limitations

- Critics argue that Kant's emphasis on moral autonomy and rationality appears biased in
favor of the intellectual elite. They contend that his framework excludes individuals who
have experienced mental illness or those with physical and psychological limitations from
being considered fully capable of moral, autonomous, and rational actions. This
exclusion raises concerns about the inclusivity and applicability of Kant's ethical theory.
Ex: Suppose a deontological principle dictates that individuals have a moral duty to provide
informed consent for medical procedures. However, this principle may not account for
individuals with severe cognitive limitations or mental illnesses who cannot fully comprehend or
provide informed consent. Deontological ethics, in this case, may not offer clear guidance on
how to handle such individuals' medical treatment, as it typically focuses on rational and
autonomous decision-making agents.

● Rationality alone doesn't prevent harm caused by rational wrongdoers

- Kant's emphasis on rationality as the core of moral behavior has faced criticism due to
real-world examples where rational individuals engage in harmful actions. This criticism
highlights that rationality alone is not sufficient to ensure ethical conduct, as seen in
cases involving rational criminals, fraudsters, and toxic polluters. Despite their high
degree of rationality and careful deliberation, these individuals commit immoral acts that
harm others, suggesting that factors beyond rationality influence human behavior and
moral choices.
Ex: In a deontological ethical framework that emphasizes rationality, it's assumed that rational
individuals will always act morally and responsibly. However, consider a situation where a highly
rational person knowingly creates and distributes a harmful and dangerous product, causing
harm to others for personal gain. Despite their rationality, this wrongdoer's actions result in
harm, illustrating that rationality alone doesn't prevent harm caused by rational wrongdoers.

● Allows acts to be universalized without necessarily making them moral

obligations
 - Critics argue that while Kant's principle of universalizability is a useful ethical guideline
for many actions, it overlooks the fact that not all actions that can be universalized are
necessarily subject to ethical considerations. In other words, there are things one could
will as universal practices without contradiction, but they may not necessarily become
moral obligations that one ought to fulfill. This criticism highlights the need for additional
ethical criteria beyond universalizability to determine the morality of an action.
Ex: In a deontological framework, an act may be universalizable without becoming a moral
obligation. For instance, consider a situation where a person decides to spend all their time
pursuing their personal interests and desires without regard for others. While this action could
be universalized (everyone could pursue their interests), it doesn't necessarily make it a moral
obligation. Deontological ethics allows for acts to be universalizable in principle without implying
that they are morally required or commendable.