Deontological ethics (Non-consequentialism)

All deontological ethics theories are non-consequentialist. This means that they
place the emphasis on the decision or action itself - on the motivations, principles,
or ideals underlying the decision or action - rather than being concerned with the
outcomes or consequences of that decision or action. This reasoning is founded on
the desirability of principle (usually duties or rights) to act in a given situation. The
two main non-consequentialist theories are ethics of duties and ethics of rights and
justice. Both of these are rooted in assumptions about universal rights and wrongs
and responsibilities. This means that people who promote these types of ethical
principles usually believe that they should be applied to everyone, everywhere in
the world. If a child in one country has a right to an education, then this means that
all children, everyone in the world, should have a right to an education

Ethic of Deontology

The word deontology is derived from the Greek word “duty”. Deontologists argue
that I ought to perform those actions which are my duties and avoid those which
are not my duties. It is by focusing on the intrinsic character of the act that I ought
to be guided Kant’s ethics of imperatives, is the typical example of de ontological
ethic.

Duties

Most people believe that all human beings have some duties to other human
beings. Duties can be positive, such as the duty to look after one's children, or
negative, such as the duty not to murder another human being. When people use
the language of duties, they usually do so in a way that implies that the duty is
universal to all human beings (or at least to all adult humans of sound mind). The
foundation of theories of duties is the theory developed by the German
philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Rather than relying on religion to tell us
what our duties are, Kant believed that we can rely on our powers of reason to do
so.

At the center of Kant's theory of duty is what he termed categorical imperatives.

Some actions and decisions are founded on our personal desires.
For example, you could say, 'If you want to live in a beautiful house, you ought to
work hard'. However, this is not a categorical imperative, as it is based simply on
fulfilling our desires. A categorical imperative tells us that we must do something,
irrespective of our personal desires: for example, 'You ought to look after your
parents'.

A central principle of the categorical imperative is that we should treat people as

an end, never as a means to an end. This means that people should be treated with
dignity. Treating someone as a means to an end involves using them as a tool to
achieve something else. Buying products made by workers who have been paid
unacceptably low wages in order to ensure a cheap price for the goods they
produce, is treating the workers as a means to an end and it not fulfilling the duties
we have to those workers. Buying guaranteed 'fair trade' products, in contrast,
recognizes our duty to ensure that the workers who produce our goods earn
acceptable wages.

The concept of duty is not only used in terms of secular arguments. The
exhortation to 'do to others as you would have them do to you' is a text that is taken
from Christian scriptures, but it has parallels in many other religious traditions.
Both secular and religious notions of duty give us many duties, such as those to
keep promises, to avoid injuring others, to compensate others when we do them
harm, to uphold justice, to improve the living conditions of others, etc. Duties are
very often closely linked to the notion of rights. When somebody has a right,
usually this implies that others have a duty to uphold this right.

Rights

Rights theory is one particular duty-based theory of ethics. A right is a justified

claim against another person's behavior. So rights and duties are related in that the
rights of one person imply the duty of someone else to uphold that right. As Traer
(2009 p. 103) explains, the most widely accepted justification for moral rights
relies on Kant's deontological argument that we have a duty to treat every person
as an end, and not as a means to our ends, because every person is autonomous and
rational, and thus has intrinsic worth'
 These theories of the GOOD hold that actions are intrinsically right or
wrong. They are right or wrong in themselves and irrespective of their
consequences. They are traditionally associated with Kantian duty but can
also be linked to ethical systems, which uphold absolute moral norms and
human rights. Deontologists hold that one cannot undertake immoral acts
like torture of spies even if the outcome is morally preferable, such as the
early ending of a war. It is contrasted with Teleological/consequentialist
ethical theories. From the Greek deon meaning right or obligation: The
rationality of moral obligation. A Normative Ethical theory most often
associated with the German Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) which
maintains normative evaluations are rooted in some intrinsic feature of an
action which gives rise to an obligation or duty.

In a 'Deontological' system of ethics the consequences of an action are generally

irrelevant to moral assessment.

Rather, morality comes about from a rational agent's recognition of its duties
toward others. These duties can be grounded in different ways, from divine
revelation to objective rational principles.

While each type of Deontological theory finds the locus of our moral obligations in
different places, they all contend that 'goodness' resides in our ability to recognize
and keep moral obligations; the consequences of our actions are of only secondary
concern, if at all.

Kant’s moral theory advocates performance of one’s duties as the highest good.

He advocates Deontological view of morality.

For Kant, moral law is categorical imperative that demands unconditional

obedience. Moral law follows pure rational will i.e. practical reason.

Kant states three principles 1. Act on those principles which can be universalized.

2. Never treat humanity, whether in thyself, as a means only; treat it as end in

itself.
3. Act as a member of Kingdom, of Ends. Kant’s maxims of morality are forms,
without any specific detail. (Autonomy of morality)

Difference between Hypothetical Imperative and Categorical Imperative

Kant regards the moral law imposed by practical reason as Categorical Imperative.

Categorical Imperative is the internal law imposed by conscience upon itself.

Kant distinguishes Categorical Imperatives from Hypothetical Imperatives.

• A hypothetical imperative is assertorial. It is an assertion of fact.

E.g. The psychological law, “All persons act to relieve a feeling of want”. It is a
statement of fact.

Moral law is an imperative or command which should be necessarily obeyed. It is

not an assertion but a statement of standard

• A hypothetical imperative is conditional. It is a means to some other end. If we

want to enjoy good health, we must observe the laws of hygiene.

Moral law is categorical i.e. it is unconditional. It is not a means to some other

goals. It is an end in itself. It admits no questions.

It demands unconditional obedience.

• A hypothetical imperative is derivative. Natural laws are derived from

experience. It depends upon empirical facts for its obedience.

Moral law is a priori. It is not derived from experience. It is known through reason.

• A hypothetical imperative can be set aside by more higher laws.

If the circumstances change, it may change.

Moral law cannot be set aside by any higher laws. It is the Categorical imperative
and ought to be followed in all situations.

• A hypothetical imperative is relative and subjective. It applies to different

individuals in different forms.
Moral law or categorical imperative is to be obeyed universally.

It applies to all persons. It is command to all rational beings.

Kant’s notion of Good Will

Kant holds that Good Will is the only good. Kant says “Nothing can possibly be
conceived in the world or even out of it, which can be called good without
qualification, except a good will.”

It is the only Jewell that shines by its own light

A good will is one that habitually wills rightly. The rightness or wrongness of
volition depends wholly upon its motive.

An action is moral, if its motive is accompanied by good will.

Wealth, talent and power are not good in themselves. If they are associated with
bad motive they are not good. When these are accompanied by good will, wealth,
talent, power etc. are good.

Kant says, “Worth of moral action lies, not in the purpose to be attained by it but in
the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon.”

Good will is the rational will. It is autonomous and self- legislative. It lays down its
own laws. While obeying the maxim of good will, man follows his own higher
self. Thus man is truly free in following good will.

Good will follows categorical imperative i.e. moral law, laid down by it. Moral law
is to be followed out of pure respect for it. It is to be obeyed out of consciousness
of duty and not due to emotions, feelings or desires. Moral life is the life of pure
reason. Feelings and emotions ought to be completely suppressed. To give way to
compassion or love is irrational and thus non moral. To lead moral life, the will
ought to be guided by its own moral law or categorical imperative. Kant says the
will is free when it acts solely from the sense of duty. The true rule of life is “Duty
for duty’s sake.”

According to Kant an action is right or moral when a) it conforms to moral law b)

the person performs it out of pure respect for moral law i.e. “duty for duty’s sake”.
The moral law, i.e. categorical imperative is a pure form without matter. It cannot
tell us what we should do or what we should not do. It simply tells us that actions
should conform to a form. Kant does not tell us about the contents of our actions.
He maintains that our actions should be in accordance with principles of moral
law. Our actions should self-consistent. The moral law or the categorical
imperative is a pure form, devoid of content

Maxims of Morality

Kant lays down following rules of conduct to make the moral law i. e. the
Categorical Imperative more definite:

1. Act only on that principle which can be a Universal law.

This principle shows that what is right is universal. Kant says, Act in such a way as
you could wish that everyone else should act in same way. Kant gives the example
of breaking promises. This act is wrong because it cannot be universalized. If
everyone breaks promise, no one can make any promise. So no promises would be
made even to break it. If everyone commits suicide in despair no one would be left
to commit suicide. According to Kant, this maxim states unity of the form. This is
the Formula of Universal Law.

2. Do not use any person including yourself as only means.

This maxim holds a person as an end in itself and not as a means. Man is
essentially a rational being. The rational nature is an end and has absolute value.
Thus rationality of human beings ought to be respected. We should respect our
own personality and that of others. Personality has an absolute worth. To make a
false promise to a creditor is to use him as a means to one’s profit and not to
respect him as a person. Similarly we should not allow ourselves interent to be
used as means to others. According to Kant, this is the principle of inherent dignity
of man. This is the Formula of Endin-itself.
3. Act as a member of Kingdom of ends. (Autonomy of morality)

A Kingdom of Ends, is an ideal society of rational beings following Moral law.

Rationality is universal. So, all persons following the Moral Law should live in
perfect harmony with one another. Third maxim holds that, every human being
including oneself has intrinsic value. Everyone in this kingdom is sovereign i.e.
imposes moral law upon himself and subject at the same time i.e. he obeys the
moral law imposed by himself. All rational and self-ruled beings stand on equal
grounds. According to Kant, this is synthesis of form and matter.