Lesson 3

DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS

OBJECTIVES
S

At the end of this module, you will be able to:

1. recognize the meaning of deontological ethics;
2. explain the categorical imperative;
3. appreciate and articulate the role of duty in crafting an ethical life; and
4. apply the principle of the categorical imperative in moral dilemma.

INTRODUCTION

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, a golden rule that best described
this moral philosophy. This philosophy views man as autonomous and most himself/herself as not
subject to external conditions, results, and mandates. This ethical system declares its systemic
independence from religion and even asserted that it is religion that is in need of foundational
ethics and not vice versa. In this lesson we are going talk about ethical theory insisted that the
foundation of norms for the good should be rooted in human reason alone and moral rule meant to
be followed in all situations, for everyone to live moral lives.
 ACTIVITY

Create a list of examples of right and wrong actions. Discuss them with your family, friends or
classmates. Find any common actions that you agree on and also actions that you disagree.

ANALYSIS

1. How do you define right action and wrong acton?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__
2) What is your basis in defining right action and wrong action?
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACTION

Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, and Duty

Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations
there are formally operative a priori principles that can
be brought to the fore. Highlighting these a priori truths can
better help the learner of ethics sort through his/her task
of living ethically. Kant's research on ethics has named these
as reason, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant, respectively,
the foundation (reason), source (goodwill), and motivation (duty)
of ethical living.
The foundation of a sound ethics for Immanuel Kant can only be the authority of human reason.
The voice of God is not heard directly today while man is living in this passing world. Voices of ministers
and priests who claim to speak for God are but other human beings who make use of their own reason in
trying to understand what goes on around them. This common human reason is also what they use as they
comprehend the revelation that is said to be the foundation of their particular religion. Given that they share
the same humanity with everybody else including the students of ethics, what they say ought to pass through
the norm of reason that is internal to the moral subject himself/herself. Otherwise, arbitrariness holds sway
in their claim to authority and what they capriciously hold as binding or gratuitously free.
The person who acts in accordance to drawn-up lists of what one should do complies through the
use of his/her reason that they are indeed an obligation for his/her. The reason, therefore, elects such and
such as morally binding and thus acts in accordance with what he/she thinks is Her reason, therefore,
functions as the very effort to think through moral principles and apply what he/she knows to get to the
right thing to do. In fact, this internal authority of human reason is operative and takes precedence every
time the human person confronts a particular moral situation. This is human rationality that is discursive,
i.e., humans reason by "talking to themselves," according to one of the Philosopher- readers of Kant named
Hannah Arendt.
What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason. Human acceptance of external
mandates also makes use of this same reason. Kant then tells us that reason in itself can only be the sensible
foundation of what is ethical for man. Kant then bids his students sapere aude that is "dare to think for
yourselves." Autonomous reason ventures to know what is ethical not on the authority of what is external
to the self but grounded on (reason) itself. The loudness of external authorities cannot bend the autonomy
of reason that on its own knows what should be done. What others say in turn is only acceptable if it is
found to be reasonable by the use of one's autonomous reason.
If reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, III turn its source can only be goodwill. This
simply means that what is morally binding is rooted in reason as "doable for the. human person." The moral
authority for Kant is immanent in man, that is, the origin of ethical obligation for man is his/her own
goodwill.
Instead of looking at the good as external to man, Kant locates the good in the very interiority of
the self. The good that is relevant to the person who through his/her reason knows what one ought to do, is
that which he/she is can do and known as good. This goodwill implies the achievability of what is known
through reason. One who claims what one says is a moral obligation can do so by being free of impositions
from outside. That is, he/she is of his/her own doing able to carry out his/her obligation. It can only oblige
him/her insofar as he/she himself/herself through his/her own reason knows it as an obligation. In the same
way that it is an obligation insofar that it is something that he/she on his/her own can manage to do.
Kant calls "duty" the obligation that follows what reason deems as the action which is most worthy
of our humanity. This duty is founded on human reason, that is, it passes through the sorting out made by
our autonomous and discursive reason. Our duty is that which the reason determines as our obligation.
Inasmuch as duty is the doable obligation for the human person, it is not a duty if it is impossible for man
to do it. Duty, therefore, presupposes our ability for otherwise it is only a bother to the human person. Duty,
therefore, is a doable good for the human will. Duty, while founded on human reason for determination, is
at the very same time originating from the goodwill as a voluntary action that is doable for the human being:
Duty or obligation is the motivation for reason and goodwill of the human person. If one asks why
he/she had to do what he/she ought to the answer can only be because it is his/her duty. Reason tells the
human person to do the obligation that is-doable for the goodwill again since it is her/ her duty. The good
that is reachable for the will of the human person is, therefore, owned by him/her as a duty. This then
excludes any other external or internal motivation for the human person for doing what he/she ought to
whether he/ she likes it or not; be it success or failure; whether it comes with applause or accusation; his/her
reason and goodwill simply binds him/her to do what he/she ought to do because it is his/her duty.
Obligation is Understood as “Man as an End in Himself/Herself,’ Autonomous, and Universalizable
Obligation for the human person is something one's reason elects and his/her goodwill owns simply
as something she ought to do. Obligation is simply must, “categorical imperative” or a duty that is defined
by reason as doable for man's volition and, therefore, should be carried out by the human person. In this
sense, "Man as an end in himself/ herself" means the obligation cannot be passed on to others. That is, if
confronted by a particular situation, the human person in his/her integrity as reason and goodwill is obliged
to do his/her duty as the agent of action.
"The buck stops here," that is, the human person is himself/herself the center of action and
responsibility in a given ethical situation. His/Her obligation is his/hers and it is his/her participation in this
particular ethical event. He/She is autonomous in reasoning and willing the execution of his/ her defined
duty.
If one remembers, however, reason as earlier mentioned is always discursive in its execution.
His/Her autonomous reason, being thinking that is talking with himself/herself, presupposes dialogue.
Dialogue with the self-approximates a reaching out beyond the confines and determinations of oneself only.
The human person in reasoning out and determining his/her personal duty is in this sense nonetheless tied
up with other reasonable beings before whom he/ she is accountable. Is one's obligation as defined by one's
autonomous reason acceptable to other reasonable beings who can stand in one's shoes? One's reason is
also the presence of other reasonable beings one ought to strive to be in' accord with. One's definition of
duty or his/her obligation ought to be universalizable in this sense.
"Man as an end in herself" conjoined with this responsibility to reach for duty that is universalizable
necessarily demands that other human persons ought to be treated not as instruments in the execution of
what one should to do but as fellow reasonable beings, ends in themselves. They are reasonable human
beings too before whom the self stands accountable.
Kantian Ethics and Religion
Immanuel Kant fully established the independence of his ethics from religion via the recognition
of reason as the foundation, goodwill as the source, and duty as the motivation of what obliges the human
person. In his essay "Religions within the Limits of Reason", Kant went as far as setting up his ethical
system as that which is definitive in the recognition of true religion.
A "religion is not true to itself," according to Kant, if it goes against what man "ought to as defined
by his/her autonomous reason and goodwill that reaches for universalizability. Only false religion or cult
falls unreasonably to superstition and does away with duty as an obligation for his/her goodwill. It is,
therefore, such Kantian ethics that is foundational for religion and not vice versa.
Kant, however, is not against religion. For him the value of religion rests on its reality as openness
to "what one can hope for." Religion for Kant is the very openness of ethics to the complementary strength
that is provided by hope. Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define "happiness" as the motivation for his ethics
of duty. What is ethical is indifferent to happiness for Kant and is purely motivated by duty itself. One does
the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be self-serving for Kant and self-interest here moves away
from the Purity of duty.
Happiness, however, is understood by the human reason as reasonably related to ethics. "He/She
who has lived justly by doing his/her obligation dutifully is the most fitting for happiness." This truth, the
human reason knows and even goes as far as protesting the reality of just men living miserably. "Happiness
ought to be related to the ethical task of man," reason asserts in protest.
 It is clear, however, that happiness cannot be a motivation for the ethical obligation of man,
according to Kant. He, therefore, suggests the determination of "happiness as gift” for the ethical man. That
is, "he/she who has lived justly is worthy of the gift of happiness." Man cannot give this gift to
himself/herself and therefore in his/her striving to live ethically opens himself/herself in hope. Kantian
ethics, therefore, need not be hard-hearted in the pure preoccupation of duty as obligatory. The ethical
person is open to happiness he/she cannot give to himself/herself. His/Her duty can also be an expression
of hope that "he/she can make himself/ herself worthy of happiness."
For Kant, the ethical human person is like someone who in courtship the person one likes. He/She
cannot oblige the other to give him/her a positive answer to his/her offering of love and devotion. He/She
can only make himself/herself worthy of a "yes." Responding to his/her love is a gift he/she can only receive
from the other. The answer cannot be forced in the same way that happiness is something one expects to
collect after a lifelong striving of doing one's duty. Happiness is a gratuitous gift that one recognizes as
within the realm of hope. Different religions for Kant express this balance between the task of doing the
duty and the hope for what one cannot give to oneself. Religion for Kant is the reconciliation of ethics and
hope, the task of fulfilling one's duty and the gift of happiness that one cannot gain by one's efforts alone.