EECS 690 January 27, 2010

Deontology Typically, when anyone talks about Deontology, they mean to talk about Immanuel Kant. Kant is THE deontologist. Deontology is an ethical framework that holds that what makes an action right or wrong is something that is contained in the action itself, and not in its consequences. Deontology is the study of how to determine what our moral duties are.

Rationality Kant regarded human rationality as a very important consideration, and for several reasons: –Rationality is what separates us from the rest of the animal world (following Aristotle here) –If some action is to be right or wrong, anyone must be able to determine which by means of reason (this allows morality to apply universally among rational beings) –Rationality seems universally accepted as a measure of both moral agency and moral subjecthood.

The Categorical Imperative The categorical imperative is Kant’s test to see if an action can pass as moral. Kant phrased this test in between 3 and 5 different ways (depending on which Kant scholar you ask) We will focus on two of these.

“The Kingdom of Sovereign Ends” Since reason is of supreme moral importance, it will be immoral to treat rational beings as if they are not rational beings. In Kant’s language, “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” In my language, “Don’t treat people like things. Ever.” Moral arguments that involve respect and dignity and personal autonomy as inviolable moral principles have the same intuition as Kant does here.

The Universal Law Kant: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” One thing that makes this principle work is the idea that what is immoral for one person should be immoral for all others. This principle is easily confused with the “golden rule” but they are different. Consider the following example:

Breaking promises If you’re considering breaking a promise, consider what would happen if it were a universal law for everyone to break their promises. In such a case, promises don’t exist, so it is rationally impossible to will that as a universal law. If an action cannot be willed as a universal law, then it is not moral. The idea is, “If it’s not okay for everyone else to do it, why should it be okay for me?”

Universality as a component of morality This perspective is inspired by David Hume Many components of morality take the form of widespread conventions. Promises can only exist as the norm, and not an aberration. Respect for property, nonviolence, government, law and order, etc. are all things that have to be the norm to exist at all.

Similarities to Utilitarianism Utilitarianism and Kantianism will come to the same verdict in almost all practical cases, though the reasoning process is very different. (see Johnson case study) Both theories are extremely demanding

Notable differences: Utilitarianism is a framework that tell you what to do, Deontology is a framework that mostly tells you what not to do. Deontology will come to a verdict on a type of action, Utilitarianism will not. (Deontology is inflexible, but consistent) Deontology does not consider consequences, does not require predictions.

Hybrid approaches James Moor, among others proposes that Deontology will tell you what actions are morally unacceptable, and utilitarianism can select the best action from all the permissible actions. Another approach uses the framework that seems to best fit the given situation.