Kant’s Deontological

Ethics: The Duty

Framework
Kant's Deontological Ethics

Kant's Ethics is now referred to deontological has its root from the Greek "deon” which
means “duty”. Hence deontological ethics focuses on “duty, obligation, and rights” instead
of consequences or ends. An act that proceeds from the will which wills it because it can be
the will of all is a right action. Willing and doing the will of all is a duty, regardless of the
consequences. The following clarifies Kant's duty-based approach:
The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics argued that doing what is
right or what the consequences of action (something over which we ultimately have no
control) but about having the proper in performing the action. The ethical action one taken
from duty, that is, it is done precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action.
Ethical obligations are the same for all rational creatures (they are universal) and
knowledge of what these obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behavior
that are not contradicted by reason.
 01 02 03 04

Kant's famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the categorical
imperative. It has a number of different versions, but Kant believed they all amounted to the
same imperative. The most basic form of the imperative is: "Act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” So,
for example, lying is unethical because we could not universalize a maxim that said "One
should always lie.” Such a maxim would render all speeches meaningless. We can, however,
universalize the maxim, "Always speak truthfully,” without running into a logical
contradiction. (Notice that the duty- based approach says nothing about how easy or
difficult it would be to carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty as rational creatures
to do so.) in acting according to a law that we have discovered to be rational according to
our own universal reason, we are acting autonomously (in a self- regulating fashion), and
thus are bound by duty: a duty we have given ourselves as rational creatures. We thus freely
choose (we will) to bind ourselves to the moral law. For Kant, choosing to obey the
universal moral law is the very nature of acting ethically. (Mackinon, B. and Fiola A., 2015)
 The example, borrowing money with no
intention to pay back, cannot be
universalized and therefore cannot be ethical.
If this becomes universalized, there will be
no more lenders and all banks will close.
The Duty Framework Correspondingly, the duty-based approach can be
applied as a framework for ethical decision making: In the Duty
framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in a
given situation, and consider what ethical obligations we have and
what things we should never do. Ethical conduct is defined by doing
one's duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the
correct action. This framework has the advantage of creating system of
rules that has consistent expectations of all people, if an action is
ethically correct or a duty is required, it would apply to every person in
a given situation. This even-handedness encourages treating everyone
with equal dignity and respect.
This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of
outcome, so it allows for the possibility that one might have acted ethically,
even if there is a bad result. Therefore, this framework works best in
situations where there is a sense of obligation or in those in which we need
to consider why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain courses of
action. However, this framework also has its limitations. First, can appear
cold and impersonal, in that it might require actions which are known to
produce harms, even though they are strictly in keeping with a particular
moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine which duty we
should follow if we are presented with a situation in which two or more
duties conflict. It can also be rigid in applying the notion of duty to
everyone regardless of personal situation.
Kant's theory of right According to Kant, the universal principle of right"
is that "an action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in
accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of
choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with
a universal law" (6:230). In other words, your exercise freely whatever
rights you have on your property but only in accordance with universal
law. Universal law means a maxim that can be the maxim of all. You
can use, dispose, enjoy its fruits, but only in such a way that you do
not violate the rights of others. This exercise of a right bearing in mind
the obligation to respect the right of others is tantamount to good faith
or good will.
Legally and Morally Right It appears that in Kant, what is legal must be
at the same time moral. An action is legally right if it is at the same
time in accordance with universal law, that is, in accordance with the
categorical imperative. In another context, what is legal is not
necessarily moral. For instance, what is legal is limited to compliance
with law, be it laws of a state or country: but being moral may not be
just following the law, but doing more than what the law requires like
responding to the need of another. Paying an employee his minimum
wage is legal; but paying more than his minimum wage because of
care and concern of his needs is more than what is legal.
Good will Kant says, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a
good will.” Kant's criteria or framework of what is right or wrong is "good
will". An act is said to be right or wrong depending on whether it is done
with or without good will. The rightness or wrongness of an action
depends on one's good will or intentions. The usual criticism, or weakness
intentions." Is good will enough? Categorical Imperative: To serve the will
as a principle Kant has (2) versions of the categorical imperative. The first
version states “ I never to act other than so that I could will that my
maxim should become universal law." If one cannot wish or want that a
certain rule or maxim becomes the maxim of all, that it is not right to
follow it.
For instance, one cannot will that "thou shalt steal" becomes a rule to be
followed by all because others may ultimately and steal his property. One
cannot wish that “killing” becomes the maxim of all because he would not
of course wish that someone will come to kill him. The second version is
as follows: "Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end."
Treating other merely as a means to an end means equating him to a mere
instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside after use, or can be sold or
exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as long as it is
useful. Such act makes one a "user." In contemporary philosophy, like
Marcel or Buber's tern, it is treating the other as an IT, a thing. That's why
they call the act as "thing-ization."
 In the parable of "Hope for the Flowers" by Trina Paulus, Stripe's
climbing the caterpillar's pillar to reach to top, where all that could be
seen as a reward of climbing are other caterpillar's pillars, was no
other way than stepping on other caterpillars as a means of moving up
higher. Ought implies Can. This means that If and only if we can or
are free to act in certain ways can we be commanded to do so. This is
one more moral principle ascribed to Kant, derived from two passages
in his works. One is stated as follows: "For if the moral law
commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it
inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human
beings." Another one states as follows:
 "The action to which the "ought" applies must indeed be
possible under natural conditions." The Situation Ethics
author, Joseph Fletcher, used this maxim several times to
illustrate his situationism. In full statement the Saying would
be, "If I ought to do something, then I can do it." By way
logical analysis, the statement means, one's ability to do
something is a necessary condition for his being obliged to do
it. In Fletcher's terms, "you de obliged to do only what you
can where you are."
 “I an” may also be interpreted to mean one’s degree of
freedom, if by freedom we understand as what Hornedo
said about it, “the autonomous energy of being.” Since the
degree of one’s freedom is the degree of one’s
responsibility. Hornedo says, the stuff of freedom is energy
or strength. It follows that the degree of one’s obligation is
also the degree of one’s freedom. One can no mor be
responsible that what he can knowingly, freely, and
voluntarily do.
01 02 03 04

Thank You!
Jasmine M. Bien
Jemiah Andrea Camson
Jayc Chantengco
Francheska Mae De Leon
Hyurie Ann Manalo
Vernon Villavicencio