Deontology
Feb. 16, 2022 | SARA BIZARRO
The word "deontology" comes from the word deon which means "binding necessity", something that is law-like. Deontological theories typically advocate a set of rules that constitute moral obligations or duties. The philosopher Immanuel Kant is typically considered one of the main deontologists. In this section, I will mostly present Kantian Ethics, as an example of a deontological ethical theory.
Immanuel Kant argued that what makes an action moral can be described by looking only at the intention with which the action is made. This intention in some sense does have to do with wanting to do the right thing, but it will have other specific requirements. A good action, Kant says, is one we do by good will, but that good will goes beyond just having good intentions. What is good will for Kant then?
Good Will: For Kant, the only thing that is always good in itself is a good will. We should want to act in a certain way because it is right, not because of the consequences. A good will can exist even if nothing is actually done, if someone is paralyzed, for instance, they can still be good if they have good will. A good will though is not just a naive intuition to do the right thing, a good will comes from working out our what our duties are, which implies discovering what the moral law is, and then to follow it in good will. So at first sight, a lot of people think that for Kant the intention is the most important thing, but misinterpret what he means by intention - for Kant a good intention is more than being nice or meaning well, it is reasoning through our options and deciding what the right thing to do it, and then doing it independently of what we may be inclined to, even if our intuition says something different, he thinks we should follow what is right from duty.
Duty: For Kant “duty” means something different than what we usually think it means. Usually doing something because it’s your duty means following certain external rules or orders. Kant did not mean that at all. Doing something from duty is the right way to act only when that duty is towards your own internal moral law that you have figured out by careful thinking, using your reason, and applying certain logical principles. Some people are naturally nicer than others, but Kant thought we should not trust our natural inclinations as motivations for actions because they were unreliable and passive. If we take the time to figure out what the moral laws are (see later the categorical imperative), then we can follow the law from duty in a way that is reliable, consistent, and immutable. Obeying the moral law from duty is for Kant the only way to be truly free. If we just “blow with the wind” we are pawns of our physical needs and desires, we are most free not when we do what we desire, but when we do what we decide to do using our reason and we follow the moral law it recommends, even if we are not so inclined at that particular moment.
Universality: Kant thought that the main characteristic of moral principles is that we think they are “universable” so to speak. If we think that something is right, we think that everyone should do it (at least if they are in a similar situation, although he thought there were principles that were valid independent of the situation). When I say, thou shall not kill, I am saying it is wrong to kill and no one should kill. If I say that it is ok to kill in self-defense I am saying that it is ok for everyone to kill in self-defense. Claims of right and wrong have this characteristic of universality. Moral law is by its nature universal for Kant.
Maxims: Maxims are rules that guide our actions. For instance, I can have as a rule “Never lie to your friends” or “Always respect your parents” or “Always look out for yourself first” or “Never break a promise.” These are maxims we use when we think we are acting morally. For Kant an action is right depending on the maxim that motivates it. In order to know if they are the maxim that motivates an action is a good maxim, we need to know if they can become a moral universal law, we need to put them through a test. The test to know if a moral maxim is a universal moral law is very simple: a maxim that can be universalized without contradiction is a universally good maxim (we will see what he means more clearly in the section about the hypothetical imperative).
Hypothetical Imperatives: These types of imperatives are “If… then statements”. Kant says they are about prudence rather than morality. Examples of these would be: “If you want money, you should get a job.” or “If you want a good grade, you should study.” These are not moral universal laws.
Categorical Imperative: This is the crux of Kant’s ethics. A categorical imperative is something you must follow independent of your inclinations, of the consequences, of whatever else. A maxim is a universal law if it is a categorical imperative. He defines a categorical imperative in three ways, but the most well know if:
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a Universal Law.
What this means is that when I am considering if an action is right or wrong I have to think, if everyone did this action that I am now doing, what would happen? For example, if I am thinking of breaking a promise if everyone broke promises when they think it is a good idea, what would happen? In a world where people did that promises would lose their meaning and would no longer be believed, the concept itself would collapse. Kant thinks that all truly moral concepts are the same in this respect, it would be illogical to do something that goes against the moral law.
This may be a little difficult to grasp, but watch this video from the philosopher Todd May who worked with the writers of The Good Place:
The categorical imperative actually has three formulations, the first one is the one we mentioned above:
1st: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2nd: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
3rd: Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.
The first formulation is the most well know one and we already talked about it.
The second states that we can never use a person as a means, that each person is an end in itself. Using someone purely as a means, or as a mere means, is to use someone in a way that they would not in principle consent if they knew what you were doing. We have to assume that each person has maxims of their own that need to be respected. We can’t trick them and make them break their own maxims unknowingly. We can’t coerce them either, as that would be forcing them to your will, not theirs. When we lie and break promises what is in fact happening is that people are made to act in ways they would not have acted if they knew the truth, therefore, when you lie to others you are robbing them of their moral agency.
The third formulation says that every rational human being is a universally legislating will. What he means here is that we each need to figure out the moral law for ourselves using reason. If we use reason, and because logic is universal, we will come up with the same categorical imperatives. But we each must be free to explore these and come to our conclusions. Remember acting from duty? That means acting from duty to the universal law that you have figured out yourself by using reason.