Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Deontological Ethics
85
DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS
DEFINING DEONTOLOGISM
Deontological moral systems are based on moral principles, not consequences.
DEFINITION
This means that for a deontologist, actions are right are wrong in themselves, regardless of the consequences that result from them.
KANT AND THE CATEGORIAL IMPERATIVE
KANTIAN DEONTOLOGISM
- Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics sought to ground morality in pure reason, and therefore make it universally binding for all rational creatures.
Hypotheical Imperatives
Hypothetical imperatives
Non-moral duties we ought to do if we want to fulfill a relevant desire.
- You ought to study in order to get a good grade.
- You ought to practice free throws in order to make the basketball team.
These duties only apply to people with relevant desires.
- I have no obligation to study if I don't care about my grades.
- I don't need to practice free throws if I'm trying out for marching band.
The Categorical Imperative
A categorical imperative is a moral requirement applicable to all humans regardless of circumstances or desires.
The Categorical Imperative
Formula #1
First statement of the Categorical Imperative
rule behind an action
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
THE UNIVERSILIZABILITY PRINCIPLE
The Universalizability Principle
In layman's terms
An action is moral only if the rule that you follow in committing that action can hold for all people without contradiction.
Ask yourself:
1. What rule am I following?
2. Am I willing for this rule to be followed by all people at all times?
Do we have an absolute duty not to lie?
Consider the following:
1. We should only do those actions that conform to rules that can be universally adopted.
2. If we were to lie, we would be following the rule “it is permissible to lie.”
3. This rule could not be adopted because if lying were permissible no one would trust anyone else and lying would be useless.
4. Therefore, we should not lie under any circumstances -- it is an absolute moral duty derived from reason.
Formula #2
Formula #2
Autonomous, rational creatures
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.
Instrumentally valuable
Intrinsically valuable
Formula #2
Kant describes human beings as "above all price" for two reasons:
Humans have desires and goals, and so other things have value only in relation to those desires and goals (i. e. your textbook is valuable because you can use it to fulfill your goal of learning ethics).
Humans have intrinsic worth because they are rational creatures--they are free agents capable of making their own decisions (autonomous).
Journal #8
Use the categorical imperative to give an answer to dilemmas 5-7. In each, make sure you identify the maxim or rule and then give an argument for why that rule should or shouldn't be a universal law. This should take at least 3 sentences per entry.
PROBLEMS WITH KANT
While Kant's ethics are in some ways quite attractive, there are considerable problems with them.
PROBLEMS WITH KANT
The duty not to lie.
The Duty not to Lie
Kant argues that lying is self-defeating because if lies were permissable, they would no longer be effective...does his argument hold up?
Do we have an absolute duty not to lie?
Do we have an absolute duty not to lie?
Consider the following:
1. We should only do those actions that conform to rules that can be universally adopted.
2. If we were to lie, we would be following the rule “it is permissible to lie.”
3. This rule could not be adopted because if lying were permissible no one would trust anyone else and lying would be useless.
4. Therefore, we should not lie under any circumstances -- it is an absolute moral duty derived from reason.
Are there any modifications that we could make here that might make lying acceptable?
The Case of the Inquiring Murderer
Think again about the scenario with Tony and Elvira from our "Crash Course Philosophy" video. Kant argued that Elvira had a duty to tell the truth to the murderer about Tony's whereabouts because if she lied and the murderer ran into Tony by chance as he was leaving the house, Elvira could be blamed for his death. If she had told the truth, the only the murderer could have been blamed for Tony's death. This is but one example of why we should always tell the truth.
The case of the inquiring murderer (cont.)
Major issues with Kant's argument:
1. Kant is way too pessimistic (doubtful) about our ability to predict consequences.
- The truth of the matter is, there are circumstances in which we can be extremely confident about what the consequences of our actions might be.
2. Kant argues that we would be responsible for the consequences of our decision to lie, but that we somehow aren't responsible for the consequences of our decision to tell the truth.
- Would we really be without any blame at all if we told the truth to murderer who was asking for the whereabouts of an innocent victim?
Conflicting Moral Rules
Conflicting Moral Rules
Suppose A and B are both actions that are absolutely wrong in any circumstance.
1. What happens if someone is faced with a choice between A and B with no other options?
2. Could a case like this be possible? How would one get around it?
3. Can "moral absolutism" work at all? Do we need exceptions in ethics?
Conflicting moral rules
Major objection #2
Kant's categorical imperative leaves us unable to decide between conflicts of absolute moral rules.
The Problem of Reason
- Kant holds that we can ground universally binding morality in reason alone, does this seem to be the case?
The Problem of Reason
How much can we trust reason?
How much can we trust reason?
- Kant's categorical imperative assumes that we can reach a set of universal moral principles that are completely based on reason, and therefore universally agreed upon.
- Is reason actually this effective? Can we trust reason as much as Kant thinks we can?
Reason alone is inadequate
- Ultimately, Kant puts too much trust in reason. The amount of moral diversity in the world is evidence that reason alone cannot lead us to universal moral rules.
- While it is important to use reason in ethical thinking, it needs some sort of guidance from outside. Two people can reason from opposing worldviews and come to totally different conclusions.
WRAPPING UP
WRAPPING UP
Journal #9
Part 1: Compare/contrast deontological and utilitarian ethics. What are their similarities? What are their differences? (4 sentence minimum)
Part 2: Read Matthew 5-7. Based on this text, how do you think deontological ethics aligns with Christian ethics and why? (4 sentence minimum)
Deontologism without Kant
Deontologism
Though we have only looked at Kantian deontological theory and noticed its shortcomings, deontologism adds a needed consideration for principles to utilitarian moral theory.
Christian Ethics and Deontologism
Deontologism and Christian Ethics
- While Christians will not be Kantians--we do not think our ethics are derived from pure reason--deontological ethics are a necessary part of Christian ethical thought.
- Christians need to consider more than just what will make the most amount of people happy, and therefore consequences cannot be all that matters for Christian ethics, we need principles that don't overemphasize consequences in our choices.