Deontological Theories : Kantian Deontology

This ethical theory is most closely associated with German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. In Kantian deontology, to be ethical is to follow one's duty by acting on only the rules which one can at the same time rationally will that those actions become universal laws, while in Aristotelian virtue ethics, to be ethical is to develop and internalize virtuous habits until one fully becomes virtuous themselves.

Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. 

 “Nothing in this world- indeed nothing beyond the world- can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a goodwill “

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) - born in Königsberg East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). Sought to answer the question: “what is good?”

Answer: Good will According to Kant, an action could only count as the action of a good will if it satisfied the test of the “Categorical Imperative.”

Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative.

Categorical Imperative

•      A rule that is true in all circumstances.

•      Tells us how we ought to behave irrespective of our inclinations.

•      States the principle that you should ‘act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law for all rational beings.’

Kant ’ s Categorical Imperative : Reasoning About Ethics

•      Always act in such a way that you could will that your act should be a universal law

•      Similar to the “Golden Rule,” except

•      Kant claims that the rule can be derived through pure reason

•      It is categorical, not hypothetical or conditional

Another formulation of the imperative: 

Always treat all persons as ends in themselves, and never merely as means to our ends.     

Kant believed that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality, i.e., logic.      In other words, conformity to the categorical imperatives can be shown to be essential to rational reasoning.     Categorical imperatives are moral requirements. he general form of DO. (Unconditioned);    For Kant there is only one imperative command and it is the Moral Law. it is divided in 2 formulations

Categorical imperative comes in two versions:

1. Our responsibility includes following maxims that make us law-abiding members of the society. “Act only on a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law.” E.g., do not plagiarize; public relations professional

2. “Act so as to treat humanity in oneself and others only as an end in itself, and never merely as a means.”

-          People treated as valuable, as an end in themselves, not just in order to achieve something else.

-          People should not be tricked, manipulated or bullied. e.g. poor treatment of workers

How to follow these formulations

•      Kant gives some examples to use these formulations in actual situations, these examples are divided in duties:

•      Duties Toward Oneself: to ensure self preservation which are perfect (suicide), and for self-cultivation which are imperfect (promise-breaking).

•      Duties Toward Others: strict and obligation which are perfect (school work) and beneficence which are imperfect.

According to Kant rational reasoning is regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality is the law of an autonomous will. You must will to do what you are doing, i.e., do it intentionally….your intent

Indeed, Immanuel Kant, whose formulation of deontological ethics is perhaps the most well known, wrote that one must “act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.”  As with other deontologists (Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, for example), Kant held that the basis of our moral requirements is a standard of rationality.  In the case of Kant, the standard is a categorical imperative.  This single principle of rationality comprehensively includes all of our particular duties.

 

Kant is a critique of the Utilitarian's, hedonists, pragmatists, who never care about the motives of actors/agents.

•      Actions are duty based ( motive)

•      Right actions are those that are done when the agent possesses good will( a person recognizes that they ought to do these actions)

•      Categorical Imperative ( unconditional/ command- / essential)

•      “ Act only to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Universalism

 

Three  Forms of Categorical Imperative : Will, Universalizability and Respect

Among the various formulations of the categorical imperative, two are particularly worth noting:

Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.

Categorical Imperative: a command which expresses a general, unavoid­able requirement of the moral law. Its three forms express the requirements of universalizability, respect and autonomy.

 

Will

Together they establish that an action is properly called 'morally good' only if

1.      We can will all persons to do it,

2.      It enables us to treat other persons as the purpose for our actions and not merely as the means to our own selfishness, and

3.      It allows us to see other persons as mutual law-makers in an ideal way of life.  

Questioning Will/Intent

Only thing Good that is good without qualification. Other Goods like intelligence and health can be qualified , Good Will is good by virtue because it is the will to follow the moralLaw.

Universalizability

•      According to Kant if the maxim or rule governing our action is not capable of being universalized, then it is unacceptable.

•      Note that universalizability is not the same as universality. Kant's point is not that we would all agree on some rule if it is moral. Instead, we must be able to will that it be made universal; the idea is very much like the golden rule --Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

•      If you cannot will that everyone follow the same rule, your rule is not a moral one.

Questioning Universalization as a Global Citizen

•      How much of our universalization is culturally relative?

•      How much do we know about the global experience?

•      Do humans name what they are familiar with normal?

•      Do humans habituate life and like things repetitive?

•      How do we develop our premises that lead to our conclusions?

 

Respect

•      A categorical imperative grounding all other ethical judgments. The imperative would have to be categorical rather than conditional, since true morality should not depend on our individual likes and dislikes or on our abilities and opportunities. They are absolutes.

•      Ultimate principles of ethics can not be relative to a specific time, place, socio-economic group, gender, religion, culture, or if-then situation.

Questioning Necessary To Determine Respect

•      Among the main questions about respect that philosophers have addressed are these:

1. How should respect in general be understood?

a)      What category of thing is it? Philosophers have variously identified it as a mode of behavior, a form of treatment, a kind of valuing, a type of attention, a motive, an attitude, a feeling, a tribute, a principle, a duty, an entitlement, a moral virtue, an epistemic virtue: are any of these categories more central than others?

b)      What are the distinctive elements of respect?

c)      To what other attitudes, actions, values, duties, etc. is respect similar, and with what does it contrast?

d)     What beliefs, attitudes, emotions, motives, and conduct does respect involve, and with what is it incompatible?

2. What are the appropriate objects of respect, i.e., the sorts of things that can be reasonably said to warrant respect?
3. What are the bases or grounds for respect, i.e., the features of or facts about objects in virtue of which it is reasonable and perhaps obligatory to respect them?
4. What ways of acting and forbearing to act express or constitute or are regulated by respect?
5. What moral requirements, if any, are there to respect certain types of objects, and what is the scope and theoretical status of such requirements?
6. Are there different levels or degrees of respect? Can an object come to deserve less or no respect?
7. Why is respect morally important? What, if anything, does it add to morality over and above the conduct, attitudes, and character traits required or encouraged by various moral principles or virtues?
8. What are the implications of respect for problematic moral and sociopolitical issues such as racism and sexism, pornography, privacy, punishment, responses to terrorism, paternalism in health care contexts, cultural diversity, affirmative action, abortion, and so on?

 

Although ultimately the above are formally equivalent, the first illustrates the need for moral principles to be applied universally. The second points to the radical distinction to be made between things and persons, and emphasizes the necessity of respect for persons.

The human worth is the reason for categorical. A person’s action determine her moral worth taking into the following aspects:

Background

Basic ideas

Motivation

Consequences

Interpretation

One can have moral worth, only if one is morally motivated. In law, one is guilty when he violates the rights of others, but in ethics, he is guilty only if he thinks doing so.

Key Issues in Kant’s theory:

–     Duty and Good will

–     Universalism

–     Treating Human Beings as an “ End” not “Means”

Ethics and reason form the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. It involves the “ transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical”

Kant brought the notion of respect (Achtung) to the center of moral philosophy for the first time. The proper object of respect is the will. Respecting person involves issues related to the will, knowledge and freedom.

Categorical imperative dictate that repaying in kind we are in effect enforcing the maxim of their misbehavior as universal law showing them the consequence(s) of the maxim.

Rational consequences is justified , favorable or unfavorable , regardless of the outcome….even if it increases the sum total of misery over happiness in the world. Individual deserves the end result of their intended actions.

Eg..; Imprisonment for the sake of deterrence uses the person as means to a (socially desirable) end, violating the person's dignity. Society has the moral right to use prison as a place to pay them back for their crime, i.e., their rational choices.

"Rehabilitation" (manipulation) society tries to psychologically trick them into accepting the rules and values the dominant group thinks they should accept. Society has no right to violate their integrity by trying to manipulate their personalities.

According to Kant The consequence should "suit" or be proportional to the action.

–     slanderers should be defamed

–     thieves should be deprived of property

–     assault should be repaid with corporeal punishment

–     murder with death (capital punishment)

What determines the seriousness of the crime?

It is the selfishness or hubris of the intent that determines the seriousness of a transgression/crime.

It is the selfishness or hubris of the intent that makes murder worse than the intent to steal.

The intent of a murderer is a more grievous violation than stealing because it eliminates the victim’s autonomy.

It is the lack of respect and using the person as a means to an end that determines the seriousness of a transgression/crime. If someone is murdered they are a means to an end, not an end.

It is the lack of universalization that determines the seriousness of a transgression/crime. We cannot murder everyone we chose to murder

Kantian justice holds that the perpetrator is morally responsible for their misdeeds

Animals & the mentally incompetent are not morally responsible because they act from necessity and not liberty and they can’t understand the rightness or wrongness of their acts.

Rational beings have free will to choose to do or refrain from doing what they are capable of understanding to be right or wrong.

Eg..; One can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart (sounds rational, look at the housing situation), and the maxim would then become impossible. Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception because they undermine the very basis for their existence.

 

According to Kant, the concept of “motive” is the most important factor in determining what is ethical.

More specifically, Kant argued that a moral action is one that is performed out of a “sense of duty” or a “obligation.

Kant's theory is an example of a deontological or duty-based ethics : it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved.

A deontological theory looks at inputs rather than outcomes.

One reason for the shift away from consequences to duties is that we cannot control the future. We are praised or blamed for actions within our control, and that includes our willing, not our achieving.

This is not to say that Kant did not care about the outcomes of our actions--we all wish for good things.

Kant insisted that as far as the moral evaluation of our actions was concerned, consequences did not matter.

•      For Kant, a moral action is not based upon feelings or pity.

•      It is not based on the possibility of reward.

•      It is a moral action that is based on a sense of “This is what I ought to do.

Kantian Deontology: Example

Helping an old lady across the street because you feel pity for her is not a moral act. Helping an old lady because your coworker will think highly of you is not a moral act. However, helping an old lady because you have a sense of duty to help the elderly is a moral act.

Because motive is the most important factor in Kantian ethics, it is possible for an action to have negative consequences while still being a moral act. For example, if acting out of a sense of duty or obligation you attempt to save a drowning child, but in the process you accidentally drown the child, your action is still considered a moral one.

 

 

Criticism of Kant

1. Kantian ethics has been criticized on several points. First, some say Kant’s approach gives little aid for complex situations. For example, what if there are conflicts of duty? Suppose you decide that two duties are

Telling the truth; and

Protecting your friends.

But what if a madman with an axe asked you where your best friend was so he could murder him or her? Do you tell the truth and thus lead the murderer to your friend? Or do you lie and save your friend’s life? Interestingly, Kant believed telling a lie was always wrong even if a vicious murderer asked you where your friend was so he could murder him.

1. Kant dismisses emotions such as pity and compassion as irrelevant to morality. But many think these are “moral” emotions that cannot be separated from morality. Why should helping an old lady across the street out of compassion not be considered moral? What is wrong with compassion and pity?
2. Kant’s approach does not take the consequences of actions seriously enough. What if a well-intentioned person with a good motive causes a number of deaths? He would be morally blameless according to Kant’s view.

–     What if a well-intentioned babysitter dries your cat in a microwave oven? Would you say, “That’s okay, her motive was good.”

3. Who Is Excluded from Kant ’ s Kingdom of Ends?
4. Kant ’s system counts all people as moral equals
5. But to count as a person you must be capable of rationally deliberating about universal moral principles
6. What happens to the rationally impaired?
7. Someone without rationality (ex. an Alzheimer ’s patient) has no moral standing to Kant
8. Conflicts among Principles
9. Focuses on moral principles, but ignores moral behavior
10. Even universal laws can have a variety of different, and possibly conflicting, practical effects

–     Ex. Hiding Jews from the Nazis

11. The Kantian system does not always provide clear moral answers to serious moral quandaries

 

Objections to Kantian deontology:

(1)   Kant’s claim is that the moralstatus of our actions is determined solely on the basis of the rightness or wrongness of the action itself.  This means that it is categorically wrong to, for example, lie, in any circumstances, regardless of the consequences.  It seems implausible, however, to hold that lying is categorically wrong in all circumstances.  Imagine, for example, a situation in which a serial killer is on the hunt for your daughter.  While searching for her, the killer, whom you know to be the killer, encounters you and asks for information regarding your daughter’s whereabouts.  According to Kant’s deontological theory, you would be required to tell the truth.  Does this seem reasonable?

 Kant believed that only categorical imperatives could properly be considered part of morality. And he argued that there was one and only one such imperative that could be rationally justified, which, in Kant’s philosophy, is called “the Categorical Imperative.” Kant first stated this rule as: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This moral law, according to Kant, was supposed to prohibit murder, theft, lying to others, cheating, suicide, etc. Those acts that could be seen to violate the Categorical Imperative were morally prohibited, regardless of any good consequences that might be gained from committing them, or any bad consequences that might be avoided by committing them.

Kantianism (or Deontology more generally), which says that—as a matter of respect—there are certain absolute (or nearly absolute) rules that must be followed (for example, the rule that we must respect people’s privacy, or respect other people’s right to make decisionsabout their own lives);

 Strengths:

•  ustifies obligations irrespective of consequences- justifying obligations arising out of relationships. E.g. manufacturer honouring a warranty.

•      It account for role of motive; Two people give large amounts to charity– one for genuine reason and the other for impressing people.

 Weaknesses :

•      How to know our moral obligation?

•      No reason offered to accept these rules.

•      People at different times and different places may reject Ross’s Rules