Professional Documents
Culture Documents
negatively positively
“Do not lie” “tell the truth”
“Do not steal” “keep your promises”
Derived from the Greek word “deon” meaning “duty”
Deontology is a category of normative ethical
theories that encompasses any theory which is
primarily concerned with adherence to certain rules
or duties.
Consequences do NOT matter!
Intention is relevant. I am acting a certain way only if
I
act for the right reason.
No matter how morally good their consequences,
some
choices are morally
What makes forbidden.
a choice right is its conformity with
a moral norm.
The Right is said to have priority over the Good.
If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be
undertaken, no matter the Good that it might
produce.
The employee is responsible for reviewing invoices
and expense reports, and the company policy requires
original receipts to justify the items on the expense
report. However, the employee submitted
photocopies only.
Famine Example:
(Y = goal/consequence/end; X = means)
An example of a hypothetical imperative is: “If you want
to pass this test, you ought to study.”
Absolute and unconditional moral commands
The form of a categorical imperative is:
“You ought to X.”
(X = END-IN-ITSELF, without regards to
MEANS or other ENDS)
An example of a categorical imperative is: “You
ought to study [because you are a student].”
It is implied here that the rule or maxim is
that
students are supposed to study… the end.
Theories focused on the duties of the moral agent
(the person acting) rather than the rights of the
person being acted upon (patient-centered theories).
This allows for agent-relative reasons for actions
and duties.
Agent-Relative Duties: An Act is Relative to the
Individual Duties of the Agent (ex. Duties to
family, Personal Morality, Self-Interest).
Agent-Neutral Duties: The Act is the Same for
Every Agent (ex. duty to follow the law, duty to not
kill innocents).
An agent-relative obligation is an obligation for a particular agent
to take or refrain from taking some action.
Since it is agent-relative, the obligation does not necessarily
give anyone else a reason to support that action.
Example:
Each parent is commonly thought to have such special obligations
to his/her child, obligations not shared by anyone else. Likewise, an
agent-relative permission is a permission for some agent to do some
act even though others may not be permitted to aid that agent in
the doing of his permitted action. Therefore, each parent is
commonly thought to be permitted (at the least) to save his own
child even at the cost of not saving two other children to whom he
has no special relation.
At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of
agency.
The idea is that morality is intensely personal, in the sense that
we are each charged to keep our own moral house in order.
Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our
actions cause or enable other agents to do evil; the focus of
our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of
moral contamination.
In other words, we only answer for our own actions, not
anyone
else’s, nor for the how others act in response to our actions.
Ex. Refusing to lie even it will cause 20 more lies, while lying just
this once might prevent others from having to do so.
Here, the doctor knows that the baby will die, but this is
an effect of the procedure, not his intention. It is implied
that if he could perform the procedure without killing the
baby, he would.
Within this framework, you have the right against being used only
as means for producing consequences (either good or bad) without
your consent.
Ex. If you could kill someone you knew to be a murderer, a utilitarian would say
“go for it” because it will prevent further death. Yet… a deontologist would likely
maintain that killing is wrong and would, therefore, allow any future deaths
since foreseeing or risking those deaths does not make you responsible.
The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten
times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and
charged
$2,000 for a small dose of the drug.
The sick woman's husband went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about $ 1,000. He told the druggist that his
wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from
it."
So the husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the
drug- for his wife.
Translation:
1. Can I universalize my act without contradiction?
Translation:
Can this act become a binding moral law for all of
us
(…including you)?
CI#1 CI#2 CI#3
Form a
Maxim Does it
Could the
maxim be
P
Could it
become treat
people
willed by you A
Universal and agreed
Law? as an End upon by S
not merely everyone to
as a Means? as moral law S
for the
community?
E
S
“Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or
not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or
not).”
Weaknesses
Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion
The irrelevance of inclination (no such thing as
extenuating
circumstances)
Overly formal and universal
i.e., most of our duties are in social roles
Inflexibility
1. How does Kant account for
Is it our duty to go “beyond the call of duty?”
heroism?
It can’t be our duty to do more than our duty.
Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than
an obligation.