Deontology

Kantianism and Ross’s Prima Facie Duty

Deontology
• Deontology is a category of normative theories which posits that
actions can be classified as either good or bad based on following a
well-defined set of rules.
• The term deontology is derived from the Greek word "deon", which
means duty.
• If an action aligns with these rules, it is considered ethical, while
actions that deviate from them are deemed unethical.
• The ethical theory by German philosopher Immanuel Kant is an
example.
The Man
• Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who
lived from 1724 to 1804. He is widely regarded as
one of the most important figures in modern
philosophy and his work has had a significant
influence on many areas of thought, including
ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and political
theory.
• Kant's philosophy is characterized by his emphasis
on reason and rationality, which he believed were
necessary to understand the nature of reality and
make moral decisions.
• He is best known for his ethical theory, which is
based on the idea of the "categorical imperative" -
a principle that requires us to act only according to
rules that could be universally accepted as moral
laws.
Kantian Ethics a.k.a. Kantianism
• Only Man is rational. Therefore, unique and of infinity worth.
• Only rational beings are moral beings. Therefore, animals like cats do
not murder rats, they just kill based on instinct.
• Because man is unique and of infinity worth, it has be posited as a
foundation for the UN Declaration of Human Rights
• Malaysia did not fully endorse the UN Declaration of Human Rights
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination
• https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-govt-says-wont-ratify-rig
hts-treaty-after-facing-anger-from-malays-and-muslims
• According to Kant, to be totally autonomous (free, to exercise liberty),
rational man must free to follow a moral law he has given himself.
• If man follows a law imposed upon him/her, then that is no
autonomy.
• Ethical actions are out of a good will of duty to follow the moral
law/rule (Deontology).
• But what is this moral law? This is the categorical imperative.
• Kant has 4 formulations of the categorical imperative.
• We will learn and apply 2 formulations of the categorical imperative.
First and Second Formulations
First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Universal Law Formulation
• “Act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
• In other words, “can your action
be universalized” such that all
rational man will do the same?
• See page 67
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Humanity Formulation
• “Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of another,
always at the same time as an end
and never simply as a means.”
• In other words, do you treat
people with respect and dignity?
• See page 70
First Formulation’s Moral Principles
• An action is right if one can
universalize the maxim of the
action.
• An action is wrong if one cannot
universalize the maxim of the
action.
• An action is optional if one can
universalize the maxims of
commission and omission
associated with the action.
Second Formulation’s Moral Principles
• An action is right if failing to do so would
fail to respect humanity to a greater
degree than would any alternative action.
• An action is wrong if doing so would fail
to respect someone’s humanity to a
greater degree than would any other
alternative actions.
• An action is optional if neither performing
the action or not performing the action
would involve failing to respect humanity.
Summary
• Kantian ethics holds that morality is based on the intention of acting
from a sense of duty out of a good will, guided by the categorical
imperative, which requires universalizing one’s actions, treating
humanity as an end in itself and promoting autonomy.
Examples
• Suicide: Killing yourself is really treating yourself as “a means to an end”
of escaping problems; fail to respect the dignity of person, i.e. to kill
yourself.
• Murder: Failure to respect the dignity of other person (to kill others),
using others as a means to an end.
• Making false promises: E.g. borrowing money without intention to pay
back. Using others as a means to self-gain. And false promises lead to
contradiction too (unable to make any promises at all). See page 257 on
promise keeping, and page 339, past year exam question No 6 about
promise keeping.
• Telling lies: Will lead to contradiction if universalized because if all
rational man tells lie, everyone knows; furthermore, telling lies is
treating people as means to other ends.
• Selling your kidney, or other organs: Treating your person as an
object (a means) to some ends (for money).
• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/leisure/2023/04/13/de
ad-at-35-but-manishas-organs-save-lives/
• Selling human organs is illegal worldwide (except Iran), but there is a
world shortage of organs. Thus a lucrative black-market. How to
resolve this?
• How about a business in trading “organs of deceased seller”? Is this
ethical? Think about it. Who are the stakeholders?
• Bribery: The maxim of bribery is “Making a secret payment, or a
promise of a secret payment, in exchange for unfair advantage over
others”.
• If this maxim is universalized, it will lead to contradiction (no secret
payment as everyone will know it, therefore no unfair advantage to
be gained by bribe giver)
• Furthermore, bribery violates the second formulation of the
categorical imperative as well because bribery involves using bribe
takers as means to ends.
Limitations of the Moral Theory
• Emotionless – The moral theory tie too closely morality with
rationality while ignoring the role of emotions in moral decision
making. It involves a thought experiment of an impartial rationalist.
• Absolutism – no exception to the rule. The moral theory is too
idealistic and rigid as it is overly formal. It subscribe to an unqualified
absolutism in ethical theory that allows for no exception to the rule.
• Abstraction – not easily applicable: In a moral dilemma, Kantian
theorists have to avoid moral conflict be apply fine abstract reasoning
that may not be relevant for daily decision making.
Furthermore
• Kantianism denies any moral conflict as only one answer is right in any moral
judgment.
• “Do you tell a lie to save a life?” (Tell the truth vs Killing someone)
• For Kant, you cannot tell a lie, you must tell the truth, but in this case, tell a misleading
truth”. Because telling a misleading truth honors the principle of “truth-telling”.
• However, this approach betrays a fundamental idea of Kantianism. If the
consequences of an action is not important for deciding whether an action is right or
wrong (nonconsequentialism), then why not just tell the whole truth (that your
daughter is in the kitchen).
• The fact that Kant is not willing to tell the truth, reveals that the consequences of
telling the truth is too great (therefore, betraying itself theory as a nonconsequential
theory).
Implications for Moral Judgment
• Kantian ethics is a robust and powerful ethical theory, particularly
when moral issues directly involve the harm or well-being of
individuals.
• By applying the second formulation of the categorical imperative in a
straightforward manner, one can support their moral judgment with a
powerful ethical principle that emphasizes treating others as ends in
themselves and not merely as means to an end.
• When used in conjunction with other normative theories, such as
Ross's theory of prima facie duties, the grounding of moral judgments
can be further strengthened.
Next, another Deontology
• Another deontology is the Divine Command Theory – moral
obligations are constrained by God's commandments or divine will.
Morality is founded on God's authority rather than on human reason
(like Kantianism).
• E.g. The Ten Commandments. However, this theory is not part of
what we will cover in Business Ethics syllabus.
• A third moral theory that is classified as a deontology is William D.
Ross’s Theory of Prima Facie Duty.
William D. Ross’s Prima Facie Duty
• “To Tell a Lie or to Save a Life” Revisited
• To reach an all-things-considered moral judgement in cases in which two
or more principles apply and favor conflicting actions, one must use moral
judgement to figure out which duty is most stringent (most incumbent).
• The “figuring out” is based on moral intuition.
• In this sense, Ross’s theory is intuitionism.
• There is a ranking of duties and we have to discern with intuition which is
most important to perform.
• See page 76. “Prima facie act is self-evidently right … when we have
mental maturity … and given enough attention to the proposition, without
any need of proof…”
• We have a stronger duty not to violate people’s rights and not to
injure them (i.e. a duty of nonmaleficence – not to harm others) than
to assist people or promote their well-being (i.e. a duty of
beneficence – do something good for others) .
• Utilitarian, concerned to maximize happiness, is less inclined to
differentiate between good actions but are not immoral if not done
and actions that are morally required.
• Utilitarian expects everyone to be a moral hero… (always maximizing
utility)
 But not everyone is a
Gandhi or Mandela?

Moral hero

Many moral philosophers distinguish between morally necessary behaviors and charitable
or supererogatory actions - that is, actions that would be good to undertake but would not
be significant if not done. This difference is not made by act utilitarianism. Although we
appreciate altruistic people (such as Mother Teresa), we perceive them as going above and
beyond the call of duty. Ordinary folks are not held to such high standards. People who are
not moral heroes or fall short of sainthood can yet live morally satisfying lives. Primarily, the
moral theory of Ross’s prima facie duty allows people to manage their lives and their own
priorities rather than being forced to be moral heroes like utilitarian.
7 Prima Facie Duties
• Non-maleficence: This duty requires us to avoid causing harm or injury to others, including
refraining from actions that could potentially harm others.
• Fidelity: This duty refers to the obligation to keep promises and contracts made with others.
• Reparation: This duty is concerned with making up for the harms caused to others, including
compensating for damages, apologizing, and attempting to restore relationships.
• Gratitude: This duty refers to the obligation to show appreciation and gratitude to those who
have helped us in some way, including expressing thanks and reciprocating kindness.
• Justice: This duty involves treating others fairly and impartially, based on principles of equity
and equality.
• Beneficence: This duty requires us to do good and promote the well-being of others,
including providing assistance, offering help, and acting in a way that benefits others.
• Self-improvement: This duty involves the obligation to cultivate one's own talents, abilities,
All things being equal, duty of nonmaleficence trumps all other duties.
and moral virtues, striving to become a better person.
(Duty not to cause harm to others is widely assumed to be required in all
circumstances). See page 74.
Examples
Your company has a profit-after-tax of RM1mil. What is the
right things to do with the money?
• Utilitarian: Look at maximum good to the majority.
• Ethical Egoist: Give myself first
• Kantianism: Optional. Not a clear guide.
• Ethical relativism: Does the culture say anything?
• Ethical Parochialism: Do that which maximized the benefits to in-group.
• Prima Facie Duty: Look carefully at your firm’s situation and make a prudent
judgment. Prioritize profit for most important responsibility first.
Limitations of the Moral Theory
• Moral decision making is based on intuition. However, intuitive theory is subjective,
as we do not know when our intuitive knowledge is sufficient or enough. Could
there be more (or fewer) prima facie duties that appear on Ross’s list, how do we
know?
• When various persons evaluate the severity of obligations differently, how should
decision-making be done? What if persons differ about which prima facie
responsibility in a certain situation is stricter? There is no standard way to rank
duties.
• Ross’s theory has been criticized for being “half-baked” as a moral theory. A moral
theory is supposed to provide answers to moral dilemmas and to solve the problem
of conflicting principles. But Ross’s theory tell us that we usually cannot know what
the right answer is until we are in the particular situation and intuitively perceive
the “pressures” of the most incumbent duty.
Implications for Moral Judgment
• This is another robust normative theory that is both realistic (has
explanatory power) and relevant to daily living.
• Analyze the moral issue and determine whether the Duty of Non-
Maleficence (or other duty) is applicable to make a moral judgment.
• When used in addition to another relevant normative theory, Ross’s
theory will strengthen your justification of your moral judgment.