Deontological ethics

Deontological ethics (from the GreekDeon meaning obligation) or Deontology is an ethicaltheory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others. Deontology posits the existence of a priorimoralobligations, further suggesting that people ought to live by a set of permanently defined principles that do not change merely as a result of a change in circumstances. One of the most important implications of deontology is that praiseworthy goals can never justify the immoral actions; ends do not justify the means. Deontology is directly in opposition to consequentialism, an ethical theory in which the ends can justify the means because decisions are judged primarily in terms of their consequences.

Proponents of deontological ethics

Image:KANT.jpg The most famous deontological theory was advanced by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. This theory held that particular kinds of acts are morally wrong because they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and thus should not be carried out under any circumstances whatsoever. Conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings should always be carried out, under any circumstances whatsoever. A course of action that should always be carried out is often called a categorical imperative.

Other examples of deontological theorists include the Englishphilosopher John Lockeand the modern-day philosopher John Rawls. Locke held that individual persons have inviolable rights that are part of the natural law of the world, and that actions can be judged as right or wrong based on whether they respect these inviolable rights. John Rawlsclarified the meaning of deontology by explaining the distinction between the right and the good. Whereas consequentialist theories argue or assume that an act is right (and should therefore be carried out) if it maximizes the good, deontological theories assert that an act can maximize the good yet still be wrong (and therefore should not be carried out) if it violates some deontological principle such as a right or a duty or the categorical imperative.

Criticism of deontology

Image:Bentham.jpg Many utilitarian philosophers offer interesting critiques of deontology. Jeremy Bentham, an early utilitarian philosopher, criticized deontology on the grounds that it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion. John Stuart Mill, who lived in 19th centuryBritain, argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance.

Shelly Kagan, a current professor of philosophy at Yale University, notes in support of Mill and Bentham that under deontology, individuals are bound by constraints (such as the requirement not to kill), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). It is difficult to see how options could exist in a consequentialist theory, since consequentialists always have a logically positive obligation to maximize the Good. Deontology can thus have a net effect of increasing moral permissiveness, even though it appears to be based around imposing additional restrictions.

Another, unrelated critique of deontological ethics comes from Aretaictheories, which often maintain that neither consequences nor duties but "character" should be the focal point of ethical theory. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, sought to describe what characteristics a virtuous person would have, and then argued that people should act in accordance with these characteristics.

Specific Criticisms of Kant's Ethics

One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the Swissphilosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was still alive, and his response was the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives. In this reply, Kant argued that it is indeed one's moral duty to be truthful to a murderer, which is a result that deeply conflicts with many people's moral intuitions.

Kant argued that telling the truth to the murderer is required because the action itself is of value, regardless of the consequences; lying to the murderer would treat him as a means to another end, which is immoral because the will would be acting only under a particular interest, and not one that has universality. Furthermore, one does not know what will happen in the future. It might turn out that if you lied about where the victim is, you would be morally responsible for that lie. For example, say you said the victim was in the park, when you thought he was in the library. However, little did you know, the victim actually left the library and went to the park. The lie would actually lead the murderer to the victim. Another example post-Kantians bring up is that one would not be morally responsible for the action anyway; the murderer would be. If one told the truth, it might turn out the murderer decides not to murder after all.

Because Kant's theory only draws distinctions between right acts and wrong acts, some question how the categorical imperativecan explain the prioritization of moral duties when they come into conflict. For example, if one must steal in order to keep a promise, how should he or she act? Some Kantians have argued that promising to steal is an immoral act itself, because the declaration of intent to act immorally is inconsistent with free will. The fact that one has acted immorally in the past would not release him or her from the duty to act morally in the future; therefore, when confronted with the issue of choosing between stealing or promise-breaking, breaking the promise would not be an immoral act, but stealing would.

Universal oath-breaking

Another objection to Kant came from the Englishman, Sir David Ross, who pointed out that a world where everyone could be depended upon to always break their promises would be just as effective and reliable as a world where everyone kept their promises, and one could thus will that promise-breaking become universalisable. However, this argument may fail to take into account Kant's argument that lying would violate the second formulation of the categorical imperative, which forbids treating another person as a means to another end.

Eudaimonia assumed

Ayn Rand's critique amounts to this reductio ad absurdum: The deduction that the entire human race has a duty to die is entirely consistent with the Categorical Imperative provided that the deducer agrees that he himself, or she herself, has a duty to die too - regardless of any, some or all's inclination, rooted in self-love, to stay alive. At the root of her critique is her conclusion that Kantian appeals to the good implicitly appealed to Aristotle's eudaimonia while explicitly denying its relevance to morals. An example: a duty to promote universal war is exactly the same as a duty to promote universal peace once eudaimonia is removed.

Prudential vs. moral maxims

Louis White Beckargued that within Kant's theory, it is unclear what is a moral maxim and what is a prudential maxim. For example the maxim that the purchaser of every new book should write their name on the flyleaf: There is nothing in the categorical imperative to discern that this is not a moral imperative for it is easily something which one would wish to be universally applied, and this universal application would lead to no irrational contradictions. Of course this imperative is actually hypothetical, but the condition is merely omitted. One could say that you should always inscribe your name inside a new book, if you want it to be returned. The categorical imperative on its own cannot differentiate between a prudential maxim and one that is truly moral--this requires a longer and more complex method of reasoning.

The difference between what is moral and what is merely prudential cannot be understood except with reference to the second maxim. One can certainly act in any way one chooses on a local scale and consider oneself moral: but this involves only a local group of people, not the universal whole. True morality can only be found when one acts with mindfulness of the interests of all people.de:Deontologie es:Deontología fr:Code de déontologie he:??????????? nl:Deontologie no:Deontologi pl:Deontologia fi:Velvollisuusetiikka

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological+ethics Wikipedia article Deontological ethics.