Deontology After an ‘A’ in A2 ethics?... You Kant go wrong with Deontology!

Duty and Prescriptive Ethics The term ‘deontological’ is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning ‘duty’. So, deontological systems are concerned with describing our moral duties. By contrast with consequentialist systems, deontology is concerned with the intrinsic properties of actions – whether they are good or bad in their own right. The most famous moral deontologist is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant ( ). Kant thought that our morals should not be influenced by feelings (‘inclination’), but instead we should be concerned with fixed statements of duty (I ought to…). This makes Kantian ethics ‘prescriptive’.

Kant lived a very dull life in the late 18th century, never leaving his home town of Königsburg. His life was so structured that people used to set their watches by his afternoon walks. Still, what Kant lacked in terms of an interesting lifestyle he made up for in the complexity and interest of his philosophy. Kant’s key work on ethics was the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in which he sought to establish real ethical duties and values over and against typical human desires (contrast this with Jeremy Bentham’s psychological hedonism). Immanuel Kant It’s important to remember that Kant was a rationalist. He thought that he could find a rational and universal basis for ethics. He sought to demonstrate that being moral is rational behaviour.

Goodness and Moral Law Kant maintained that humans seek an ultimate end called the supreme good, the summum bonum. This is the state in which the highest virtue and the highest happiness are combined. While Kant was not interested in arguments for God’s existence, his theory of ethics assumes God. Kant thought that reaching the summum bonum must somehow be guaranteed. So, he thought it reasonable to assume that God exists to support the idea that we can reach the highest good. But what is goodness? Kant thought that he had found it in the idea of moral law …

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe … the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Kant believed that the moral law is objective; its rules are real and binding. The logical definition he applied to moral statements was synthetic a priori. The ‘synthetic’ part means that moral statements are not true by definition (not analytic) and so can be true or false. The ‘a priori’ part means that moral statements cannot be demonstrated through experience; they are more a part of our understanding. So, again: moral law is synthetic a priori – it may be true or false and is not known directly from our experiences. It is a part of our reason.

Moral Imperatives For Kant, the basis of duty is what he calls ‘categorical imperatives’. To explain this, he distinguishes real ethics from ‘hypothetical imperatives’ – instructions which have conditions attached to them. For example: Antecedent: ‘If you want to get in shape …’ Consequent: ‘… then you should get some exercise.’ This prescribes actions on the basis of hypothetical desired outcomes. Yet for Kant, the whole point of ethics is that it is not based on our desires or circumstances. A moral law is a categorical imperative because it has no antecedent; there is no ‘if’ part in the command. In other words, duties are binding for their own sake.

The Categorical Imperative For Kant, to reject a true moral principle involves a logical mistake. Furthermore, whenever we act, we act on a maxim: a rule/principle. Although it may be difficult to work out what that maxim is in a given moral action, a maxim is always there. Kant speaks of moral actions as categorical imperatives, but there is also one underlying moral principle which he calls the Categorical Imperative. This is the fundamental test of maxims. Kant formulates the Categorical Imperative in three ways: 1.) For any maxim to be true, you must be able to allow that it could become a law for everyone. 2.) Never treat people just as a means; always see them as a valuable end in themselves. 3.) Act as though you assume that everyone is following the moral law. The Categorical Imperative 1.) “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” 2.) “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” 3.) “Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxims always a law-making member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

Freedom and Accountability Yet, the very idea of duty raised a problem for Kant: how can there be meaningful moral duties unless a person is first shown to be free? There seems to be an issue here, for it is possible to look at people as essentially predictable. We might doubt whether free choices really are being made. This doubt arises from an application of causal determinism – the theory that consequences are entirely determined by their causes (if x happens, then y must follow). That applies in the natural world, but what about human behaviour? Kant thought that it was crucial that human behaviour is not determined, for we cannot be held accountable unless we can make choices. To solve the problem of determinism, Kant observed that we can envisage human behaviour in two different ways. Firstly, if we observe other humans then from our external point of view their actions can appear determined (e.g. I know that hungry school boys will eat a pizza when it’s offered to them). Secondly, though, I can consider my own behaviour internally and see that I have a choice (if offered a pizza, I am quite capable of rejecting it, even if I am hungry). So, for Kant our own behaviour can be understood as free and rational, so long as we view it from the right vantage point.

Evaluation Questions to Consider Is it really acceptable to say that the consequences do not matter in ethics? Should duty always be preferred over emotion and sentiment? Are freedom and rationality necessarily closely linked? Should ethics really be a priori? We might learn about morals through experience.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Kant and Deontology Strengths Kant’s distinction between duty and inclination seems sound. What is right is not always what we want. Justice for Kant would always be safeguarded for individuals, who are always “ends in themselves”. He avoids the Utilitarian flaw of allowing the minority to suffer for the benefit of the majority. Kant’s appeal to reason and universal values is sane and constructive. Surely it is best if we can give grounds for our ethics and share those values with others. Weaknesses The refusal to consider consequences at all seems perverse; what if certain actions have horrendous or wonderful results? Is that not important? Deontology leaves the individual with no flexibility and no chance to consider individual circumstances. Intuitively, we seem to accept that certain rules must have sensible exceptions. For instance, sometimes we might need to lie to protect others. We might question whether it is really possible to ‘universalise’ moral maxims. There are an infinite number of possible moral choices; is it reasonable to suppose that the same rules can be applied consistently in different circumstances?

A modern approach: Thomas Nagel A contemporary philosopher who supports deontological ethics is Thomas Nagel. He has been much influenced by Kant and has sought to show that deontology is still of relevance today. His main work on ethics is The Possibility of Altruism. He writes: “Common moral intuition recognizes several types of deontological reasons – limits on what one may do to people or how one may treat them. There are special obligations created by promises and agreements; the restrictions against lying and betrayal; the prohibitions against violating various individual rights, rights not to be killed, injured, imprisoned, threatened, tortured, coerced, robbed; the restrictions against imposing certain sacrifices on someone simply as a means to an end; and perhaps the special claim of immediacy, which makes distress at a distance so different from distress in the same room. There may also be a deontological requirement of fairness, of even-handedness or equality in one’s treatment of people.” In other words, in daily life we generally assume that there are some fixed duties and expect others to comply with them. We expect fairness, loyalty, etc.

Kant’s deontological ethics have recently been criticised by the famous moral philosopher Peter Singer. Singer criticises Kant for removing the element of sympathy and emotion from ethics: According to Kant, it is only when a person somehow loses ‘all sympathy with the fate of others’, so that the person is no longer moved by any inclinations, but acts for the sake of duty alone, that ‘for the first time his action has its genuine moral worth’. Singer also argues that the idea of ‘duty for its own sake’ leads to a ‘closed system’ in which people do not inquire into the reasons for our actions. This he regards as dangerous. Finally, without sympathy, Singer claims that the idea of duty can lead to ‘moral fanaticism’ – the elevation of a perceived duty above all consideration of humanity. A modern critique: Peter Singer

I Kant believe how easy this topic is! Finally, let’s have a look at a sample essay plan for deontology… Nearly there …

Describe and assess the value of deontology as an approach to ethics [40] 1)Introduction – define deontology, contrast with consequentialism, and introduce Immanuel Kant (see slides 2 and 3). Suggest your view or argument. 2)Kant’s views on goodness (especially summum bonum) and the moral law. Synthetic a priori (see slides 4 and 5). 3)Moral imperatives, including the hypothetical / categorical distinction and the formulations of the Categorical Imperative (slides 6 and 7). 4)Freedom and accountability (short paragraph, slide 8). 5)Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of Kantian deontology, giving a clear viewpoint / argument (slides 9 and 10). 6)Evaluate a modern supporter of deontology: Nagel (slide 11). 7)Evaluate a modern critic of deontology: Singer (slide 12). 8)Evaluative conclusion: summarise main points and re-state your argument. As far as possible, try to make a judgement on the material you cover.