Module 5

Deontology II
Categorical Imperative
and Conditional Deontology
Lesson 1: Categorical Imperative
Lesson 1.1: Grounds of Morality
Lesson 1.2: The Moral Principles
Lesson 1.3: Some Challenges
Lesson 2: Conditional Deontology
Lesson 2.1: Motivation and Approach
Lesson 2.2: Prima Facie and Actual Duties
 Lesson 1: Categorical Imperative

Lesson 1.1: Grounds of Morality

Morality and Rationality

• This deontological ethical theory was propounded by Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804).
• The source of moral laws is neither God nor human natural desires
or inclinations, but the individual rational person. Morality is
grounded in the rational will of persons.
• Morality is not contingent but necessary. Moral obligations are
known through reason alone.
Good Will and Acting from Duty
• Good will is the unconditional good. All other good things are good
because they are done with good will.
• Intelligence, power, fame, and health are good only when used by a
person with good will or when used for the right intentions. They can be
bad when used for the wrong intentions.
• Good will is acting out of/from duty.
• The only motivation to act from duty is respect for a law, not a desire for
the consequences of the act.
• One may act in accord with duty but not from duty, when the person,
while doing what duty requires, has the wrong motivation.
Moral Imperatives
• The imperative of acting from duty is categorical.
• There are two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical..
• Hypothetical Imperative: “If you want X, then do Y.” E.g., if you want to be
physically fit, then exercise regularly; if you want to graduate with honors, study
hard.
• Categorical Imperative: ”Do Y.”
• Categorical imperatives are derived from respect for laws governing
actions; while hypothetical imperatives are derived from the desire for
the consequences of actions.
• Moral imperatives, for Kant, are categorical, not hypothetical. The
imperative to perform moral duties is derived from one’s respect for
moral laws, not from one’s desires for the act’s consequences.
 Lesson 1.2: The Moral Principles

Formulas/Formulations of the (Moral) Categorical Imperative

• These are ways by which the morally good act is identified.
• Though highlighting a specific aspect of acceptable moral rules, they all lead to
the identification of the same morally good act.
• Usually expressed as “principles,” Kant presented several formulations of the
categorical imperative, of which the two main ones are:
1. Principle of Universalizability
2. Principle of Respect for Persons
Principle of Universalizabiltiy:
• An action is morally good if its maxim can be made universal or as a law for
everyone without contradiction.
• A maxim is a law created by a person for himself/herself: “I ought to do X.”
• Universalizing a maxim means making one’s own law a law for everyone:
“Everyone ought to do X.”
• Universalizing a maxim without a contradiction means that the resulting law
will not make the act that it is regulating meaningless. Example: Maxim: “I
ought to steal another person’s properties.” Universalizing the Maxim:
“Everyone ought to steal another person’s properties.” Contradiction: Given
the universal law, it will be meaningless for everyone to have properties.
• Principle of Respect for Persons:
• An action is morally good if it does not use persons merely as means but also
as ends at the same time.
• Persons, unlike mere objects, have interests; thus they cannot be treated in the
same way as mere objects are treated—that is, as mere means to ends.
• Treating persons as means is treating them in ways that satisfy our own
interests, while treating persons as ends is treating them in ways that satisfy
their interests.
• While it cannot be avoided to treat persons as means, they can, however, be
treated at the same time also as ends. It is when we treat them as mere means
(not as ends as well) that our actions towards them is morally wrong.
• Modern Version: treat persons in ways to which they will give their informed
and voluntary consent.
• Example: stealing is morally wrong because it is an act that disregards the
interests of persons, thereby using them as mere means.
 Lesson 2.3: Some Challenges
1. It lacks openness to consider the particular factors and circumstances
surrounding the action.

2. Feelings and emotions are also important in doing morally good

actions.
3. The notion of moral persons is limited to those that are rational and are
able to exercise rationality. This will exclude other entities which we
feel should also belong to the moral community, such infants and
animals.
 Lesson 2: Conditional Deontology

Lesson 2.1: Motivation and Approach

Motivation of Rossian Ethics

• W.D. Ross (1877-1971) aims to avoid the negative features of
Kantian Deontology and Utilitarianism
• Kantian categorical imperatives, admitting no exceptions, are
sometimes impractical.
• Utilitarianism may sometimes justify injustices and violations of
moral rights.
Features of Rossian Ethical Approach
1. Deontological: morality is a matter of following moral duties
2. Pluralistic: moral duties arise from a variety of factors, not limited to
utilitarian and Kantian conditions—they include, among others, other
forms of human relationships like those between parents to children,
employer to employee, promiser to promise, creditor to debtor, and
others.
3. Conditional: which moral duties ought prevail in a given situation
depends on the conditions of the situation.
 Lesson 2.2: Prima Facie and Actual Duties

Prima Facie Duties

• Moral duties initially appear as prima facie duties. Our prima facie duties
are our duties, as we first recognize them. They are our tentative moral
duties, immediately arising given certain conditions.
• Without claiming completion, Ross identifies the primary prima facie
duties as follows:
1. Duty of fidelity – the duties to fulfill promises and agreements or
contracts, and not to engage in deception.
2. Duty of reparation – the duty to make up for wrongful acts or injuries
one has done to others.
3. Duty of gratitude – the duty to repay other people for the past favors they
have done for oneself or for the benefits one has received from them.
4. Duty of justice – the duty to distribute benefits and burdens fairly—in
which people get what they deserve to receive.
5. Duty of beneficence – the duty to improve the conditions of others or to do
good to them.
6. Duty of self-improvement – the duty to improve one's own conditions in
life especially in the areas of health, security, wisdom, morality, and well-
being or happiness.
7. Duty of nonmaleficence - duty not to injure other people or to prevent
them from being harmed physically and/or mentally.
Actual Duties and Conflict Situations
• Prima facie duties may conflict with one another: this situation is called a
conflict situation.
• E.g.: The duty of keep a promise to meet someone may conflict with the
duty to take care of one’s sick mother at home.

• If a prima facie duty is not challenged by another prima facie duty, it

automatically becomes the actual duty. Our actual duties are the ones we
ought to do in given situations.

• If there is a conflict situation, where one prima facie duty is challenged by

another prima facie duty, the prima facie duty that is stronger (or has the
greater force of ”oughtness” or “more incumbent upon us”) becomes our
actual duty.
Knowing Prima Facie Duties and Determining Actual Duties
• The recognition of prima facie duties and the determination
of actual duties in conflict situations are not rational; they are
intuitive.
• They, however, require background conditions:
• Maturity in age.
• Capability for understanding and examining the situations.
• Ability to take account of the moral convictions of thoughtful and well-
educated people.
• Cultivation of good character traits.
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).