UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES-MANILA

DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND PHILOSOPHY

LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS

CLASS OF DR. ALLAN C. ORATE

MODULE 7
Ethical Theory of Deontologism
M7. TOPIC OVERVIEW

There are people who would want to do an act and consider it good, but the same act he
would not like others do to him. A carnaper may steal other people’s car and be happy for his act,
but he would find it inappropriate for others to steal his car. The attackers plunged airplanes into
the twin towers and the Pentagon building, and the U.S. regarded the attack as an evil act of
terrorism; then the U.S. dropped bombs over Afghanistan and Baghdad and regarded the military
invasion as good and just. In arguments like these, there is an obvious logical contradiction which,
by the rule of thought, the moral reasoning is invalid. The ethics of deontologism by Kant is based
on the theory of coherence in human reason; and from the consistency of moral argument, it derives
moral duties that all men must perform.

M7. OBJECTIVES

At the end of the lessons, the students are expected to:

1. Compare and contrast deontologism with other ethical theories.
2. Exemplify some human acts to which deontologism is employed.
3. Evaluate the moral quality of an act based on deontological ethics.
4. Apply the principles of deontologism to ethical reasoning and decision-making.

M7. READINGS

M7. Reading 1. Joseph Kranak, “Kantian Deontology,” in https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-

phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/
M7. Reading 2. Andrew Chapman, “Deontology: Kantian Ethics,” in https://1000wordphilo
sophy.com/2014/06/09/introduction-to-deontology-kantian-ethics/

M7. VIDEOS

M7. Video 1. PHILO-Notes, “What is deontological ethics?” in https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=v6FdxomCR3M
M7. Video 2. CrashCourse, “Kant and Categorical Imperatives,” in https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw&t=11s

LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 1

 M7. LECTURE
Deontological Ethics by Kant

Some people would agree that the supreme principle of morality may be stated by the
Golden Rule: “Do unto others what you would like others do unto you.” This maxim is central
to the teachings of the Chinese sage Confucius and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Its moral
implication is grounded on two basic ideas: the role of moral duty a person has to himself and his
fellowmen, and the social aspect of morality as a relation of an individual to others in the
community.

The theories of Stoicism and Natural Law Ethics emphasize the kind of moral law intrinsic
in human nature. The other types of law ethics, to be discussed in the present chapter, found
morality on the operation of the law based on a sense of duty in Kantian Deontologism and the
law according to society in Conventionalism. We may begin to understand these two ethical
theories by integrating the imperatives of the Golden Rule and the concept of moral law.

There are people who would want to do an act and consider it good, but the same act he
would not like others do to him. A carnaper may steal other people’s car and be happy for his act,
but he would find it inappropriate for others to steal his car. The attackers plunged airplanes into
the twin towers and the Pentagon building, and the U.S. regarded the attack as an evil act of
terrorism; then the U.S. dropped bombs over Afghanistan and Baghdad and regarded the military
invasion as good and just. In arguments like these, there is an obvious logical contradiction which,
by the rule of thought, the moral reasoning is invalid. The ethics of deontologism by Kant is based
on the theory of coherence in human reason; and from the consistency of moral argument, it derives
moral duties that all men must perform.

IMMANUEL KANT

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konisberg. His 80 years of
fruitful life was mostly devoted to academic pursuits. An original thinker, he received
professorship in Physics and Philosophy in Konisberg University where he was greatly admired
as a competent lecturer and a gentle and civil person. As in the rigorous consistency of his mind,
Kant’s everyday life was an observance of impeccable routine and regularity which fascinated the
people around him. He woke up and slept at exactly the same time everyday, ate the same food,
dine in the same bar. He had the habit of walking in the university along the same path at precisely
the same time everyday, that people set their clock at the moment of his passing.

The philosophical quest of every rational being according to Kant is focussed on three
fundamental questions: What can I know? What should I do? And, what may I hope? The second
question concerns morality. The first one was answered by Kant in his book The Critique of Pure
Reason where he established the metaphysical and epistemological basis for his ethical theory. He
profounded this ethical theory in the Foundation on the Metaphysics of Moral and The Critique of
Practical Reason. The ethics by Kant may be called Deontologism because it appeals to the act
itself as implying a sense of moral duty the human agent ought to perform as a rational being.

LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 2

KNOWLEDGE OF MORALITY

It cannot be denied that we possess knowledge of morality. But are these knowledge valid?
Kant’s Deontologism seeks to demonstrate the validity of knowledge of morality by appealing to
the theory of knowledge formulated in The Critique of Pure Reason.

The epistemology by Kant differentiates between two ways of acquiring knowledge.

Knowledge a posteriori is empirical, based on experience by the senses such as “The table is
brown,” or “Alice escorted an old woman cross the street.” Knowledge a priori is logical and
consistent within itself; it comes before experience and is based on the pure form of understanding
inherent in the structure of the human mind such as “For every effect there is a cause,” or “7 + 5 =
12.”

Morality cannot be known a posteriori according to Kant because human experiences bring
out only a description of how man in fact behaves. These facts of man’s conduct and behavior are
the subject matters of Anthropology and Psychology. Knowledge of morality is a priori because
it concerns the imperative of how man ought to behave. Analyzing this concept of oughtness is
the proper concern of ethics.

Deontologism by Kant seeks to based morality on the a priori understanding of the

imperative of human acts. It centers on a formal structure of reasoning the mind undergoes in the
process of moral evaluation and justification. As pure reason speculates on logical consistency of
valid knowledge in the mind, practical reason deals with valid knowledge of morality resulting
from the understanding of consistent human actions. Practical reason is autonomous for it works
only within its own logical boundary—the analysis of the act itself. It is not influenced by feelings,
impulses or inclinations by the agent or by the circumstances or consequences of the act.

MORAL POSTULATES

For Kant, ethics as a philosophical science is a system whose truth and validity lies within
its own logic and defends on postulates. There are three basic assumptions dictated by practical
reason that we have to accept without question nor proof in order for ethics to be valid and
consistent. They are freewill, existence of God and immortality of the soul.

Since Deontologism appeals to the sense of moral duty, it rests on the operation of freewill
in every human being. The existence of duty assumes that man is free so that he has the inherent
capacity to act in whatever manner he can or not to act at all. If we were not free, then there would
be no need for any duty upon which to based human conduct, because it would follow that our
actions are not caused by ourselves but are only necessitated or imposed by an external power; we
could not therefore be responsible for any act nor accountable for any praise or blame. And without
sense of moral obligation, sanction and justice, ethics is illusory and meaningless for such logical
conclusion cannot consistently be admitted by practical reason.

Practical reason also dictates that we live beyond our death. There are sanctions we receive
in present life: criminals are penalized by the state or people are rewarded by the society for doing
good. But not everyone obtain corresponding sanctions for their acts: many real criminals are not
caught, some are not prosecuted nor imprisoned, and many heroes remain unsung and few
righteous are recognized. The sense of justice is imperfect in this world. Hence, we are inclined to
LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 3
posit an afterworld where perfect justice is found. Because, if human life were only within this
world and we were completely annihilated in earthly death, then there would be nothing of us to
received eternal reward and punishment, thus the concept of good and evil would be meaningless.

If there were perfect sanctions that lie beyond this world that every man ultimately receives,
practical reason admits the existence of God, the supreme giver of justice and moral law who
himself is perfect and absolutely just. It is inconsistent for reason to think that we simply float in
eternal limbo after we die, without receiving the necessary rewards or punishment for our conduct
because there in nobody to administer the eternal moral sanction.

GOOD WILL AND MORAL DUTY

The norm of goodness is the good that is without qualification, according to Kant.
Possessions like wealth, power and fame, or personal qualities such as beauty, intelligence and
courage, are good; but they are good only for some measure because they can be used for evil
purposes: political power can enslave people or seductive beauty can destroy human relation.
“Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification
except a good will.”

The outward manifestation of one’s act does not indicate the state of his will. A politician
may donate millions from his own pocket to typhoon victims, but if his act is dictated by his desire
to win the next election, his will is not good. “The good will is good not because of what it causes
or accomplishes, not because of its usefulness in the attainment of some set purposes, but alone
because of the willing, that is to say, of itself.” A person has a good will when he tries to do act
out of a purely moral motive, rather than from self-interested motive.

The concept of good will carries the concept of moral duty. A person has a good will on
account of a purely moral motive. That purely moral motive is the desire to act out of respect to
moral duty. One with a good will tries to act not only in accord with duty but also acts from the
motives of duty. For instance, a store owner has a duty not to overprice his commodities. But one
may be honestly charging his customers, even an inexperienced child, the correct amount because
he feels that buyers would patronize his store in competition with the others, thus only acting from
self-interest. The will of an honest store owner is good if he acts purely from motive of duty by
removing any personal inclinations towards gaining or losing. Also, it is a duty to preserve one’s
life on account of which people take anxious precautions. Life sought for pleasure is self-
interested, so that when it turns out painful, death is felt to be better deserved. One only acts from
pure duty to life when his own is preserved not for the love of it nor for the comfort it yields, so
that he still clings to life even at the point of extreme fear and pain.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

Moral duties are derived from principles embodied in the categorical imperatives, Kant’s
logical and abstract version of the Golden Rule. The categorical imperatives serve as the supreme
principle of morality. Out of them valid particular judgments about particular moral acts are
obtained by means of arguments that conform consistently to practical reason.

The categorical imperatives are imperatives as they command, by the force of law, every
human rational agent to consistently abide with moral duties. The imperatives are categorical
LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 4
because they contain within them the ultimate ground for obligation, as distinct from hypothetical
imperatives in which assertions are based on antecedent or conditions.

The logic in Kant’s Deontologism is based on the a priori discourse expressed by

categorical imperatives. A moral argument is valid if it passes the tests of logical consistency,
universal application and unconditional compliance demanded by the categorical imperatives. That
which could not pass the consistency tests destroys itself. As pure reason cannot hold two
contradictories to be both truth or both false, practical reason cannot conceive of an act to
contradict itself.

The main formulation of the categorical imperatives concerns the principle of

universability: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” Out of this formulation is derived the Universal Imperative of
Duty: “Act as if the maxim of your action by your will were to become a Universal Law of
Nature.” Since all men are rational beings, the determinant of how may an act be good is the
analysis of its universal application—that it could be consistently willed by anyone to be done by
all men who are morally bound by duty to do it. An act is evil if it cannot be so universally willed
without contradicting itself, and men are obliged by duty to not do it.

Another formulation of the categorical imperatives concerns the principle of end in itself:
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or the person
of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Every man as
member of humanity necessarily conceives, on rational ground, his own existence as a person who
determines himself for an end, and not as an arbitrary thing to be used in serving only as a means
for some end. A person, therefore, has to treat all others in the same measure as he regards himself
to be—those all other persons as humanity who are an end in itself and not only as a means for an
end.

To explain the principles of universality and end in itself, we consider a particular act of
cheating: “Below average students ought to cheat during examination by copying the answers of
their intelligent classmates.” There are people who would agree to this proposition out of self
interest, especially the students who would benefit from it. But applying the principle of
universality, we cannot suppose that all men would agree. It would be undesirable for the teachers
and school administrators, and the diligent and bright students would think that it is not applied to
them. Cheating on the exams cannot become a universal law of nature because it cannot be
consistently conceived by all men that such act may indeed take place because each one would
expect it to be done by everyone in the situation. Cheating is a private act in secrecy, but if
everybody wills to cheat, then it would not be cheating at all because each one would know about
it by his own act of the will. Such kind of cheating, when universalized, contradicts the very idea
of cheating itself. Being inconsistent with practical reason, therefore, the act is morally wrong, and
everyone is commanded by duty to avoid doing it. Applying now the principle of end in itself, we
arrive to the same conclusion. By abiding with the proposition, one below average student would
be treating his intelligent classmate, to whom he is copying the answers, as a means to pass the
exam and not as an end. Since he is merely using the other as a thing for his own benefit, that
particular act of cheating cannot be extended to the whole of humanity. The intelligent students,
who are acted upon in their persons only as a means, would not wish the same act to be done to

LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 5

them by anyone. That act is incompatible with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. Practical
reason conceives it to be wrong, hence ought not to be done.

Similar to our analysis of the concept of cheating is Kant’s analysis of the concept of false
promising: “During desperate circumstances, may I make a promise with the intention of not to
keep it?” I may will it myself when promising falsely is the only way to be able to borrow money.
But I cannot will it to be done by everyone because if I do the purpose of promising becomes
impossible since nobody would believe he is being promised anything but simply regard the
statement as meaningless. When conceived as a universal law of nature, the very concept of
promising contradicts itself. Also the man to whom the false promise is made does not share with
the end I achieve for myself as the borrower. Since his person is being used by me only as a means
for me to have money, the act does not treat of humanity as an end in itself. As I don’t want to be
treated like that, so are other people. In the final analysis, false promising cannot be universalize
and cannot be an end for the whole of humanity, therefore, one is bound by moral duty to avoid
doing it.

Kant analyzes the concepts of the act of suicide by self-determination, the act of neglecting
to cultivate one’s talents and the act of selfishness by one who has the capacity to help others in
need. Generally, he demonstrated that these acts cannot be consistently held by all men as universal
laws of nature, and they tend to disregard humanity as an end in itself. Out of these demonstrations
are derived moral duties of life preservation, self formation and charity.

All particular acts we can conceive, according to Kant, could be subjected to the tests of
categorical imperatives and assert their place in the realm of moral duties. We can immediately
think of acts as slavery, racism, terrorism, imperialistic war, deliberate murder of innocents, illicit
sexual affair. All people would agree that these acts should not be done to them, hence they are
commanded by moral duty to avoid doing them to others.

LECTURE NOTES IN ETHICS PREPARED BY DR. ALLAN C. ORATE 6