“Deon”= Duty

A duty-based ethic -- called deontology .

focuses on the act and not its consequence.

Rules can be expressed in 2 ways--

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 forbidden.

What makes 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.

A clerk with a duty-based ethic may reject the employee’s report and require the originals even though other clerks may simply process the report without question.

To know that this is the obligation or duty makes breaking the rule morally wrong.

Deontological theories hold that actions that are morally right are those in accordance with certain rules, duties, rights, or maxims.

Actions can be morally good, required, permitted or forbidden.

A maxim is a principle that underlies or informs an act or set of actions.

Several acts may satisfy the underlying maxim or principle.

Famine Example:

Maxim: “Try to reduce the risk or severity of world hunger.”

Actions: Giving money, Volunteer, Start an Organization

Act Guidance vs. Character Guidance

Deontology and Consequentialism provide act guidance; that is, they tell us what sorts of actions we should take rather then what sort of people we ought to become (Character Guidance).

CONSEQUENTIALISM THEORIES

• Hold that an action’s rightness or wrongness

depends on the consequence it causes (e.g

happiness, pain, etc.)

DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

Hold that an action’s rightness or wrongness

depends on its conformity to a certain moral norm

regardless of the consequence, I.e. “Right vs.

Good”

Divine Command Theory

“The Golden Rule”

Natural law & natural right theories

Kantian Ethics (categorical imperative)

It’s the idea that we have a duty to obey God, and therefore a duty to do or not do whatever God has commanded us to do or not do.

Divine Command Theory is a moral theory, and moral theology, but, strictly speaking, it is not normative moral philosophy.

WHY NOT? (Hint- Consider what it takes for moral philosophy to be normative.)

Philosophy is defined as the systematic inquiry into the nature of things (such as norms), based on logical reasoning or rationality.

Following commands does not require reason (blind faith).

Divine Command Theory has been variously categorized as moral prescriptivism, as moral theology, and as deontological ethics.

Also known as the ethic of reciprocity, this famous cross-cultural maxim states: “Do to others as you want them to do to you.”

May seem like a useful maxim at first, but it has limitations:

Depends on the mental state (personality, mental health, emotional health, compassion, etc.) of the moral agent rather than the person being acted upon.

Humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason.

Humans are morally obligated to use reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.

Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for species to survive and procreate. Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally

good. Activities that work against that law are morally wrong.

As an example, consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy is morally wrong.

An imperative is a command to act. It is prescriptive.

There are two kinds of imperatives:1. HYPOTHETICAL imperatives

2. CATEGORICAL (definite)

imperatives

Commands that are not absolute, but conditional, and premised on one’s desires.

The form of a hypothetical imperative is: “If you want Y, you ought to X.”

(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 toMEANS 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.

Agent-centered theories can be divided into those that--1) focus on the mental state of the agent2) those that focus on the nature of the agent's actions

One Type of Agent-Centered Theory:

An action is wrong or right because of the intentions that motivated it.

Ex. Doctrine of Double Effect (longstanding Catholic theory) –We should not “set ourselves at evil.”

We are categorically forbidden for intending to cause evils (such as killing innocents), even to prevent other evils. However, it is acceptable to cause evils unintentionally, even if we foresee them as effects of our actions. The focus here is on belief, risk, and cause. These are not

the same as intent.

A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life, might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the women’s life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus.

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.

In contrast, performing an abortion, even under the same circumstances, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving the mother.

Assumes that all action originates with a will or volition.

Will + Action = Agency

The focus here is on labeling actions as right or wrong. Then you must determine if there was agency in committing the act (will + action or direct cause).

Ex. Murder– The death has to occur, you were the cause, and you meant to do it.

If you were to hold baby's head under water until it drowns, that is murder; however, seeing a baby lying face down in a puddle and doing nothing to save it when one could do so easily is merely a failure to prevent its death.

Our categorical obligations are usually negative in content: We are not to kill the baby. We may have an obligation to save it, but this will not be an agent-relative obligation, unless we have some special relationship to the baby.

PROBLEM!!!– This sounds like an incredibly unpleasant approach to many; it also reminds many of egoism and offers reliance on self-interest.

These theories are rights-based rather than duty-based; some versions claim to be agent-neutral in the reasons/obligations they give moral agents.

These ideas are focused on people’s rights as a reason to act or not to act.

Within this framework, you have the right against being used only as means for producing consequences (either good or bad) without your consent.

This is not to be confused with more discrete rights --the right against being killed, or being killed intentionally.

It is a right against being used by another for the user's or others' benefit.

More specifically, this version of patient-centered deontological theories prohibits using another's body, labor, and talent without the latter's consent for any reason.

Ex. Fat Man Trolley Problem

Emphasizes the value of every human being Duty-based ethical systems tend to focus on giving equal respect

to all human beings.

Provides more ‘certainty’ in individual situations Duty-based ethics don't suffer from this problem because they

are concerned with the action itself– not a lot of gray area.

It does deal with intentions and motives. You have to do the right action, but you also have to act with the

right intention.

Absolutist-- Duty-based ethics sets absolute rules.

The only way of dealing with cases that don't seem to fit is to build a list of exceptions to the rule.

Allows acts that make the world a “less good” place-- Because duty-based ethics isn’t interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that

produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.

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.

Hard to reconcile conflicting duties--Ex. When you have a duty not to kill but you have a duty to rescue a family member.

“The German Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant,

is regarded as among the greatest and most influential of

Western philosophers, and undeniably as one of the most

difficult to read and understand.”- Kantian Ethics and the Basics of Duty – page 143

Immanuel Kant

(1724-1804)

Good WillActs solely

out of Reverence for

Moral Law

A woman was near death from a unusual type of cancer.

There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.

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.

Should the husband have done that?

How would Kant respond to this scenario? Is it okay to steal to save a life if the person is a loved one?

Reason & Morality:

1. Reason is not only the judge, but also the source, of right and wrong. RATIONALITY is what allows humans to be moral beings.

2. Moral objectives exist and can be discerned through reason.

3. When properly used (rationally guided), will is good.

4. Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid for everyone.

Moral Truth &Ethical Duty:

1. Moral truth stands by itself; it is autonomous and self-contained.

2. Ethical duty should not be based on the opinions of any individual, group, tradition, faith, cultural norm or even God’s will. They should be based on reason.

3. Ethical duties are the same for all.

4. Being good is a matter of reverence for duty.

1. Perfect Duties Kant also calls these strict or inflexible duties. These are

duties, such as the duty not to commit suicide and the duty not to make a false promise, which have no exceptions.

These are never okay to break.

2. Imperfect Duties Kant also calls these the laxer duties. These are duties,

such as the duty to help people in need (beneficence), which do have exceptions. They are still duties, but you have some choice about how to fulfill them. Ex. You don’t have to give all your money to every charity;

your inclinations can enter into which charities you choose to give to.

Kant Rejects Utilitarianism:

A utilitarian would say that it’s okay to use a person as a means to an end if the end is good. Ex. Trolley problem– It’s okay to push the fat man over the

edge to stop the train from killing five others.

Kant would say that we should respect autonomy and the dignity of persons. Therefore, a person cannot be used as a means to an end without their consent. Ex. Trolley problem– It’s not okay to push the fat man over the

edge because you are using his body as a means. Kant would say that this is stripping him of his humanity and treating him as a mere thing or reducing him to a number.

At UtilitarianismA good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes…it is good in the willing alone…”

At Aristotelian Virtues“Intelligence, courage, resolution, determination…are good in many respects, but they can be bad or hurtful when the will is not good…” (see Adolph Hitler)

Morality seems to consist of various law-like principles, obligations, that limit our freedom.

“I ought…” (duty) versus I want…” (desire)

The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity)

recognizes the moral law as his own self-imposed limitations on individual freedom for the sake of all

Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to regulate their behavior

Unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have desires” or impulses and act on them, we also have the power to reason and AUTONOMY (the capacity for self-governance).

Morality is an expression of that autonomy; it is “self-governance.”

Moral Law

CI1 – Formula of Universal Law:

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Translation:1. Can I universalize my act without contradiction?

Kant’s 4 illustrations: Do not harm the self (suicide)

Do not harm or deceive others (lying)

Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)

Do what is good for others (beneficence)

CI2 – Formula of the End in Itself

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Consider Kant’s 4 illustrations, from the perspective of the “agent” (i.e., the person undertaking the action)

rather than action:

Do not harm the self (suicide)

Do not harm or deceive others (lying)

Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)

Do what is good for others (beneficence)

AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq – A member of the 5th Civil Affairs

Group, 2nd Marine Division gives a soccer ball to an Iraqi child

CI3 - “The Kingdom of Ends” – Reason is both the source of

moral law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen).

Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your maxims, a

lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey the

laws you impose upon yourself and others”

Translation:

Can this act become a binding moral law for all of us

(…including you)?

No No No

Form aMaxim

Could itbecomeUniversalLaw?

Does ittreatpeopleas an Endnot merely as a Means?

Could the maxim be willed by you and agreed upon by everyone to as moral law for the community?

CI#1 CI#2 CI#3

Fails the Categorical Imperative:IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT!

PASSES

Maxim: I may make a false promise in

order to reap financial gain.

Generalized: Anyone may make a false

promise to get something they want.

Maxim: I may refuse to help another

person in distress who cannot pay

me, even though I could do so at

little cost to myself.

Generalized: Anyone may refuse to

help another person in distress who

cannot pay her even though it

would cost her little to help.

It is 1942. You are hiding Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl, to protect her from the Gestapo and Nazi policies of ethnic cleansing.

Imagine you are Immanuel Kant -There is a knock at the door and an SS officer asks if you are hiding Jews in the attic.

What do you tell him? Do you break the categorical imperative against lying? Categorical Imperative means – by definition – it is an UNCONDITIONAL requirement to always comply.

Kant didn’t believe one should lie to protect others; this would break the CI against lying.

CI’s derive their authority from within – from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself

(as an expression of my autonomy)

CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts” (no strings attached)

CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change

Duty and the institution of morality are like this(Must comply- no alibi)

“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).”

See any issues here?

Kantian EthicsStrengths

Realm of duty, free from utility (Woo-hoo! No math involved!)

Respect for persons

Golden rule – do unto others, expressed in rational terms

Reason-based

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 heroism? Is it our duty to go “beyond the call of duty?” It can’t be our duty to do more than our duty. Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than an

obligation.

2. Wouldn’t celibacy be immoral? Couldn’t will it to be a universal law

(…not for long, anyway)

3. Which person is more moral?a) A pirate who returns a walletb) A priest who returns a wallet

Kant would say the pirate – he does so unwillingly, but out of obligation

Aristotle would say the Priest – He does so out of intent to do good

CI1 = formula of “universal law”Make it law… without any loopholes

CI2 = “respect for persons principle”People as ends not means

CI3 = “Kingdom of Ends”You are bound to obey the laws you make… for the Good of the Community

Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third, which attempts to portray the moral situation of a free, rational individual within a democratic society.

The “essence of morality” is the motive (good will) behind the act to produce a “…Systematic union of

rational beings under common objective law.”

• I will always tell the truth.

• I will always throw my paper wrappers out my car

window.

• I will cure cancer forever by experimenting with

one homeless person’s life.

• I will shoot the POW to get the information to

possibly save my troops.

• I will provide for my family.

• I will steal food for my family if they are starving.