CHAPTER IV

DEONTOLOGY
Prepared by:
Levy Richard B. Isidro
 After reading this chapter,
you should be able to:
1. Discuss the basic
principles of deontology;
Chapter 2. Apply the concepts of
objectives agency and autonomy to
one’s moral experience;
and
3. Evaluate actions using
the universalizability test.
 THE
SUITCASE
During the flag ceremony of that Monday
morning, January 24, 2017, the mayor of
Baguio City awarded a certificate from the
City government that commended Reggie
Cabutuan for his “extraordinary show of
honesty in the performance of their duties or
practice of profession.” Reggie a taxi driver
who, just three days before the awarding,
drove his passenger, an Australian named
Trent Shields, to his workplace. The
foreigner, having a little sleep and and was
ill the previous day, left his suitcase inside
the taxi cab after he reached his destination.
The suitcase contained a laptop, passport
and an expensive pair of headphones, which
Trent claimed amounted to around
P260,000.
 THE
SUITCASE
Consider closely the moment when
Reggie found that Trent had left a
suitcase in his taxi cab: If he were
to return the suitcase, there was no
promise of an award from the City
Government of Baguio and no
promise of reward from the owner.
What if he took the suitcase and
sold its contents? That could surely
help him supplement his daily
wages. Life as a taxi driver in the
Philippines is not easy. A little extra
cash would go a long way to put
food on the table and to pay tuition
fees for his children.
REGGIE
RETURNED
THE SUITCASE
WITHOUT THE
PROMISE OF
REWARD.
MAIN REASON:

■ IT WAS RIGHT TO
RETURN LOST PROPERTY
TO THE RIGHTFUL
OWNER, NO MATTER
HOW TEMPTING IT IS TO
KEEP IT FOR ONESELF.
 TO HOLD A MORAL
CONVICTION MEANS
BELIEVING THAT IT IS ONE’S
DUTY TO DO THE RIGHT
THING. WHAT IS DUTY?
WHY DOES ONE CHOOSE TO
FOLLOW HER DUTY EVEN IF
DOING OTHERWISE MAY
BRING HER MORE BENEFITS.
DUTY AND
AGENCY
DEONTOLOGY
MORAL THEORY THAT
EVALUATES ACTIONS THAT ARE
DONE BECAUSE OF DUTY.
 ■ COMES FROM THE GREEK WORD DEON,
WHICH MEANS “BEING NECESSARY”.
HENCE, DEONTOLOGY REFERS TO THE
STUDY OF DUTY AND OBLIGATION.
■ THE MAIN PROPONENT WAS IMMANUEL
KANT (1724-1804).

DEONTOLO ■ HE WAS A GERMAN ENLIGHTENMENT

PHILOSOPHER WO WROTE ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT WORKS ON MORAL PHILOSOPHY,

GY ■
GROUNDWORK TOWARDS A METAPHYSICS
OF MORALS (1785).
IN THIS WORK, KANT BRINGS OUR
ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE, HUMAN
BEINGS, HAVE THE FACULTY CALLED
RATIONAL WILL, WHICH IS THE
CAPACITY TO ACT ACCORDING TO
PRINCIPLES THAT WE DETERMINE FOR
OURSELVES.
 HUMANS AND
ANIMALS ARE
BOTH SENTIENT
ORGANISMS.
THE DISTINCT
DIFFERENCE IS
RATIONALIT
Y.
 RATIONALI
TY CONSISTS OF THE
MENTAL FACULTY TO
CONSTRUCT IDEAS AND
THOUGHTS THAT ARE
BEYOND OUR
IMMEDIATE
SURROUNDINGS. THIS IS
THE CAPACITY FOR
MENTAL ABSTRACTION,
WHICH ARISES FROM
THE OPERATIONS OF
THE FACULTY OF
REASONS.
Rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with
our reason.
 AGENCY
THE ABILITY OF A PERSON TO ACT BASED
ON HER INTENTIONS AND MENTAL STATES.
 AUTONOMY
■ KANT CLAIMS THAT THE PROPERTY
OF THE RATIONAL WILL IS
AUTONOMY, WHICH IS THE
OPPOSITE OF HETERONOMY.
■ THESE THREE GREEK WORDS ARE
INSTRUCTIVE: AUTO, HETEROS, AND
NOMOS, WHICH MEAN “SELF”,
“OTHER” AND “LAW” RESPECTIVELY.
■ HENCE, WHEN WE COMBINE AUTOS
AND NOMOS, WE GET AUTONOMY;
HETEROS AND NOMOS TO
HETERONOMY.
■ CRUDELY STATED, AUTONOMY
MEANS SELF-LAW (OR SELF-
LEGISLATING) AND HETERONOMY
MEANS OTHER LAW.
ADULT BRUSHING TEETH CHILD WHO DOESN’T
BECAUSE OF PERSONAL LIKE TO BRUSH HIS
HYGIENE. TEETH.
Autonomy Heteronomy
 AUTONOMY PROCESS:

1. LEGISLATION OF PRINCIPLE
2. ENACTING OF THE PRINCIPLE
 Kant describes this as follows:

“The will thus not only subject to the law, but it is

also subject to the law in such way that it gives the
law to itself (self-legislating), and primarily just in
this way that the will can be considered the author
of the law under which it is subject.”
 SUBJECT TO THE LAW (VERB)
-- BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF LAW

SUBJECT TO THE LAW (NOUN)

-- THE WILL OF THE LAW
HOW CAN THE RATIONAL WILL BE
SUBORDINATE TO THAT WHICH IS
SIMULTANEOUSLY ITS OWN AUTHORITY
FIGURE? ISN’T THAT CONTRADICTORY TO
BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW AND YET ALSO
THE AUTHORITY FIGURE ITSELF?

KANT DESCRIBES:
AUTONOMY AS THE WILL THAT IS
SUBJECT TO A PRINCIPLE OR LAW.
 KANT CLAIMS,

The choice that can be determined by pure reason is called FREE CHOICE. That
which is determination only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be
animal choice (arbitrium brutum). Human choice, in contrast, is a choice that may
indeed be affected but not determined by impulses and is therefore in itself (without
an acquired skill of reason) not pure but can nevertheless be determined to do
actions from pure will.
 IMMEDIACY TO SENSIBLE IMPULSES.

FREE CHOICE VS ANIMAL CHOICE

HUMAN BEINGS CAN
“MEDIATE” WITHIN
ARBITRIUM BRUTUM.
 WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A
HUMAN TO BE AFFECTED BUT IS
NOT DETERMINED BY SENSIBLE
IMPULSES?

IT IMPLIES THAT WE ARE INDEED

BASICALLY ANIMALS, BUT WE
CANNOT BE REDUCED TO MERE
ANIMALITY.

THE HUMAN PERSON IS

NOT ONLY AN ANIMAL, BUT
IS ALSO RATIONAL.
 WE CAN THUS MAKE THE
CONCLUSION THAT
HETERONOMY OF THE WILL
OCCURS WHEN ANY FOREIGN
IMPULSE, WHETHER IT IS EXTERNAL
(AS IN OTHER PERSONS OR
INSTITUTIONS THAT IMPOSE THEIR
WILL ON THE AGENT”) OR SENSIBLE
(AS IN BODILY INSTINCTS OR BASE
EMOTIONS) IS WHAT COMPELS A
PERSON TO ACT. IN CONTRAST,
AUTONOMY IS THE PROPERTY OF
THE WILL IN THOSE INSTANCES
WHEN PURE REASON IS THE CAUSE
OF THE ACTION.
 BUT WHAT CONSISTS IN AN ACTION
THAT IS DONE BY AN AUTONOMOUS
WILL INSOFAR AS THE CAUSE OF THE
ACTION IS PURE REASON? WHAT DOES
IT MEAN TO ACT ACCORDING TO PURE
REASON.
UNIVERSALIZABI
LITY
 SUBSTANTIVE
MORAL THEORY

■ IMMEDIATELY
PROMULGATES THE SPECIFIC
ACTIONS THAT COMPRISE
THAT THEORY. AS SUCH, IT
IDENTIFIES THE PARTICULAR
DUTIES IN A
STRAIGHTFORWARD
MANNER THAT THE
ADHERENTS OF THE THEORY
MUST FOLLOW.
– EX. TEN COMMANDMENTS
OF THE JUDEO-
CHRISTIAN TRADITION.
FORMAL MORAL
THEORY
■ DOES NOT SUPPLY THE RULES OR
COMMANDS RIGHTAWAY. IT DOES NOT TELL
WHAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT TO DO.
INSTEAD, A FORMAL MORAL THEORY
PROVIDES US THE “FORM” OR ”FRAMEWORK”
OF THE MORAL THEORY. TO PROVIDE THE
”FORM” OF MORAL THEORY IS TO SUPPLY A
PROCEDURE AND THE CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING, ON ONE’S OWN, THE RULES
AND MORAL COMMANDMENTS.
– EX. GOLDEN RULE
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” 
- CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO SUCH A MAXIM, BY WHICH
YOU CAN AT ONCE WILL THAT IT BECOME A UNIVERSAL
LAW.
 FOUR KEY ELEMENTS IN
FORMULATION OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
■ ACTION
■ MAXIM – Subjective principle of action (rule that we
live by in day-to-day lives)
■ WILL
■ UNIVERSAL LAW – maxim that becomes
UNIVERSAL LAW
FALSE PROMISES
■ Here I see straightaway that it could never be
valid as a universal law of nature and be
consistent with itself but must necessarily
contradict itself. For the universality of a law
that each person, when he believes himself to
be in need, could promise whatever he
pleases with the intent not to keep it, would
make the promise and the purpose that he
may have impossible, since no one would
believe what was promised him but would
laugh at all such expressions as futile
pretense.
 PURE REASON

(Prescriptivity) — "Practice what you preach"

(Universalizability) — "Make similar evaluations about similar cases"

(Rationality) — "Be consistent"

(Ends-Means) — "To achieve an end, do the necessary means"

Gensler, Harry J. Formal Ethics. ISBN 0-415-13066-2

HERE IS ONE
OF THE
LIMITATIONS
OF
DEONTOLOG
Y.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!