Deontology

Deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: δέον (deon) meaning obligation or duty) is "the theory of duty or moral obligation." Deontology is also known as nonconsequentialism.

Deontologists argue the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the goodness or badness of its consequences. In contrast, consequentialism holds that the right act of system of rules is the one that maximizes or satisfices good consequences as determined by an imparital determination of good and evils. Deontological ethics typically is thought to involve two important elements: prerogatives and constraints. Prerogatives deny that agents must always seek to perform actions with optimific consequences. Constraints place limits on what actions agents may undertake in an effort to bring about or own or the impartial good.

Deontological Theories

The most famous deontological theory is that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his theory, Kant claimed that various actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and that, conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings are morally right. Therefore, Kant claimed, we all have a duty to avoid the first type of act and perform the second type of act.

Kant believed that this duty was absolute. He drew a distinction between contingent duties, which only need to be carried out under certain empirical circumstances, and categorical duties, which always need to be carried out, because they are based on a priori reasoning about the general nature of things, and thus apply no matter what the circumstances are. Kant thought of the duty to promote human freedom and rationality as the only truly categorical duty. He called this duty the categorical imperative, and described it at great length in his writings. Of the five formulations of the categorical imperative Kant developed, the three most well-known and significant are:

File:Kant 2.jpg

Immanuel Kant

• Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
• 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.
• Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Modern day Deontolgists include John Rawls and Frances Kamm. Of these, Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm has garnered a great deal of recent attention. The Principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This Principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case jugments, many of which involve deontological intutions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of 5 others. Yet we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would kill 5 innocent and immobile people onto a side track where 1 innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends-such as in the organ harvesting case.

Criticism of deontology

The most pressing difficulty for deontologist philosophers is justifying constraints. Robert Nozick famously points out what has become known as the paradox of deontology. If we are truly concerned about rights (such as the right not to be harmed in certain ways expressed by Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm) then it seems logical we should seek to minimize violations of these rights. However, deontological constraints themselves prohibit such action. For example, consider a case where someone has maliciously sent a trolley hurtling towards 5 innocent and immobile people at the end of a track. The only way to stop the trolley and save the 5 if to throw 1 innocent bystander in front of the trolley. If the 5 are killed, this would constitute 5 violations of the PPH. If the 1 is thrown in the way, this constitutes one violation of the PPH. However, the Principle of Permissible Harm clearly rules out throwing 1 in front of the trolley. Hence the paradox. In order to respect the rights of the five, deontologists tell us we must respect the rights of the 1.

File:Bentham.jpg

Jeremy Bentham

Many Act or Case utilitarians offer critiques of deontology as well as Rule Utilitarianism. 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 century Britain, 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 murder), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). His line of attack on deontology is first to show that constraints are invariably immoral, and then to show that options are immoral without constraints.

Another, unrelated critique of deontological ethics comes from aretaic theories, 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.

External links

• Notes on Deontology A convenient summary of deontology with a focus on Kant

References

• Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-06-131159-6.