This module is concerned with developing

your understanding of Deontology (Kantian

Ethics) and Teleology (Utilitarianism) in Ethics.

It is hoped that the discussion, description

and explanation in this module will further
help in your journey to the understanding of
ethics, especially Deontology (Kantian Ethics)
and Teleology (Utilitarianism) in Ethics which
are important in helping you to become
responsible moral agent.
Deontology is an ethical system that bases
morality on independent moral rules or
duties. 

The term came from the Greek word deon

which means ‘duty’, implying the
foundational nature of man’s duties or
obligations.
Kantian ethics is an example of deontology
where it believes that when we wish to
determine the moral status of an action, we
would consult reason.

An act either accords with reason or it does

not. If it accords with reason, we must do it, if
not we must not do it.
Teleology refers to moral system that
determines the moral value of actions by
their outcomes or results.

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system

judges the rightness of an act in terms of an
external goal or purpose.
Immanuel Kant

Kant categorically rejects that ethical

judgments are based on feelings.

For him, feelings even serve as obstructions

to our discernment of right and wrong. His
ethi9cal theory instead bases moral
judgments on reason alone. Reason, for him
is what deems an action ethical or otherwise
Good Will

Kant believes that when we wish to

determine the moral status of an action,
we would consult reason.

An act either accords with reason or it

does not. If it accords with reason, we
must do it, if not we must not do it.
Good Will

Kant believes that one of the functions of

and capacities of our reason is to produce
a will which is good not as a means to
some further end, but good in itself.

For him, it is the good will which is the

highest good and the condition of all
other goods.
But who is a good person or a person of
good will?

For Kant, it is the person who acts from a

sense of duty.

Kant thinks that acting from a sense of

duty means exhibiting good will even in
the face of difficulty.
For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that
it be an act of a free agent. That it must
be a voluntary action, not a forced or
compelled one.

In addition, however, it must be an act

done not form inclination but form a sense
of duty dictated by reason.
• It must be an act done not form inclination but
form a sense of duty dictated by reason.

Inclination refers to the feeling that pushes us

to select a particular option or make a particular
decision. It is our liking or tendency to do, favor,
or want something.

Duty or obligation on the other hand is that

which we ought to do despite our inclination or
taste to do otherwise.
Normally, people perform the acts which please
them or which they desire to do in particular
circumstances.

For Kant, these actions determined by wishers,

passions, appetites, desires and the like have
no moral worth. He believes that we act morally
only when we restrain our feelings and
inclinations and do that which we obliged to do.

Morality as Kant sees, it is essentially

connected with duties and obligations.
There is however a need to make a distinction
between acts done from the motive of duty and
those are in accordance with duty.

Acts done from the motive of duty are moral acts

unlike with the latter.

Respecting one’s parents for expediency or solely in

obedience to custom, paying one’s debt for fear of
being sued, helping others because it’s pleasing to
do so, taking care of one’s children because one is so
fond of doing so, displaying honesty to receive an
award, and keeping promise by accident are all
examples of acts that are in accord with duty but
not from duty.
Acting morally entails acting from the motive of
duty regardless of the consequences that doing so
or not doing so will bring.
 
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
 
But we may ask Kant, “Can a person know what
his duty is in a given situation?” “Is there a test
to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set
of circumstances? Kant believes that there is.

First it is one’s duty, as a rational being to act

on principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply
acting on impulse.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
 
 
To distinguish actions on maxim from actions
on impulse, let’s provide some illustrations.

Suppose a man wants to financially help a

certain lady who is in need, merely because he
likes her personally, and he might not want to
give the same assistance to another woman in
an exactly similar situation because he does not
happen to like her. This is acting on impulse
and not done for a reason or on any principle or
maxim.
Now contrast this with another man who give
relief to total strangers who are victims of a
calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to
provide support to those in need, he treats in
precisely the same manner any other person
whose situation has the same characteristics.
This is acting on maxim.
Maxim, as we have seen, is a general rule or
principle which serves as a guide to action.

However, not all maxims are moral ones.

In Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that

are moral, that is those dictated by reason and
thus have imperative force.
There are two kinds of imperatives
 
Imperative should be understood as a command of
reason.
 
Categorical imperatives specify actions we ought
to take regardless of whether doing so would
enable us to get anything we want. It commands a
person to act in particular ways regardless of what
goals one looks for or what one’s ends may be. It is
absolute but unconditional.

“An example of a categorical imperative might be

“Keep your promises.” 
Hypothetical imperatives identify actions we
ought to take, but only if we have some particular
goal. Kant means that the commands depend upon
the goals to be fulfilled. They are contingent and
derivative.
 
Now if hypothetical imperative states, “If you want
to attain a certain end, act in such-and such a way.”

The categorical imperative on the other hand

pronounces, “No matter what end you desire to
attain, act in such-and-such a way.” Clearly, it
command a person to act in particular ways
regardless of what goals one looks for or what
one’s ends may be.
Kant provides various formulations of the categorical
imperatives, the universalizability and end in itself
formulations.
 
Formula of Universality and the Law of Nature
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law”
 
The Second Formulation: The Formula of Humanity
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any other, never
merely as a means to an end, but always at the same
time as an end”.
STRENGTH of Duty-Based Ethics
 
A strength is that a lot of our moral experience
and practice takes the form of following rules.

Duty-Based Ethics are concerned with what

people do, not the consequences of their
action.

Do the right thing. Do it because it is the right

thing to do.

Don’t do wrong things. Avoid them because

they are wrong.
Strengths:
Real of duty, free from utility.
Respect for persons.
Golden rule – do unto others, express in
universal terms.
Reason based.

Weaknesses:
Hyper-rationally and lack of emotions.
The irrelevance of inclination.
Inflexibility.
1. It is a matter of subjective opinion.
The definition of right and wrong from a person’s
deontological perspective depends on the skills and
insights of the individuals involved in the situation.

2. It eliminates the idea of self-defense.

Deontological ethics dictate that all forms of
violence are wrong.

3. It could take people at risk.

Kant argument was that all ethics were absolute
and because ethics are based on the action, a
better choice would be to do nothing.
According to him, even lying to a murderer to save
someone from becoming a victim was morally
wrong.
Teleology

It refers to moral system that determines the

moral value of actions by their outcomes or
results.

From the Greek word ‘telos’, which means

‘end,’ teleology takes into account the end
result of the action as the exclusive
consideration of its morality.
 
Teleology deems an action as morally right if
its favourable consequences are greater than
its adverse outcomes (utility).

Its most famous form is consequentialism

which proposes that morality is determined
solely by a cost-benefit evaluation of the
action’s consequences.
Utilitarianism
 
CONSEQUENTIALIST ethics proposes that actions,
rules, or policies should be ethically measured and
evaluated by their consequences, not by intention of
motives of the agent.
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system judges
the rightness of an act in terms of an external goal
or purpose. It is the most influential consequentialist
theory.

It comes from the Latin term "utilis" which means

"useful“.

It states that what is useful is good, and that the

moral value of actions are determined by the utility
of its consequences.