Deontology Flashcards
Deontology (SUMMARY)
- Kantian Deontology (Moral Law)
- Kantian Deontology (Categorical Imperative)
- Evaluation of Kant
- Other Types of Deontology
- Kantian Deontology (Moral Law)
- The Moral Law
- Different Types of Statement
- Good Will and Duty
- Emotion
- Freedom
- Kantian Deontology (Categorical Imperative)
- Categorical Imperative
- First Formulation: The Universal Law
- Second Formulation: Treat humans as ends in themselves
- Third Formulation: Kingdom of Ends
- Evaluating Kant
- Strengths
2. Weaknesses
- Other Types of Deontology
- W. D. Ross’ Deontology
- Criticisms of Ross
- Nagel’s Deontology
Moral Law (1)
Kant believed there is an objective moral law and that we know this law through reason
Different types of statement (1)
- A priori (1+1=2), A posteriori (knowable through experience), Analytic (true by definition), Synthetic (empirical tests)
- Kant: Moral statements are ‘a priori synthetic’
This is because morality is gained through pure reason (a priori) and they can be right or wrong (synthetic)
Good Will and Duty
- Kant: “Good will shines forth like a precious jewel”
Good will is the only conceivable thing that is good without qualification (Good will = highest form of good) - Self interest is not good.
Emotion
Kant: we should act out of duty, not emotion
Giving to baggar must be done because buty demands it. Not out of compassion
Human actions are moral due to duty not emotion
Freedom
Humans are free to make rational choices, if people are not free moral choices are impossible. This ability to rationalise is what separates us from animals
‘Ought Implies Can’
Out duty is to follow the categorical imperative.
Every moral option must be possible
Categorical Imperative (2)
Imperative = command
Kant identified two types: hypothetical and categorical
Hypothetical: Commands that are true situationally
Categorical: universally prescriptive (not subject to change)
The First Formulation: Universal Law
“Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalised”
- If an action is wrong for one, it is wrong for all
- Allowing exceptions would have an eroding effect on society.
- Kant uses the example of lying. Some circumstances mean lying has a more desirable impact. However, this harms society as it violates the source of law. If everyone were to lie, society would be intolerable.
The Second Formulation: Humans as ends in themselves
- Never as a means.
- Humans are rational and are the highest form of creation. (demand unique treatment)
- Cannot be exploited for the many (Utilitarian)
The Third Formulation: Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends
- You can’t act on a rule that assumes that others don’t treat people as ends
Strengths of Kant (3)
- Categorical Imperative prohibits ats that would be considered immoral (theft, murder)
- Kant distinguishes between duty in inclination
- Theory gives humans intrinsic worth (Cannot be exploited)
- Absolutism is consistent
Weaknesses of Kant
- Bases his theory on rationalist (not all have the same thought process)
- Disallowing individuals from being uses as a means to an end makes theory impractical
- Universality implies that all moral dilemmas are the same
- Absolutism means that there are no exceptions
Ross’ Deontology
- Critical of ethical egoism (doing something out of self-interest) and argued that morality should be grounded by what we think is right
- Prima Facie duties are duties that are binding if not overridden by another duty
( Seven: Fidelity, reparation, Gratitude, justice, beneficence, Self-Improvement and Non-Malfeasance)
Criticisms of Ross
- How do we know which duties apply in which cases?
- Ross does not explain why we have moral intuitions. just assumes they exist
Moral disagreements show morality isn’t self evident
Nagel’s Deontology
- Central question in ethics is the reasoning behind our moral choices
- Distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral reasons
1. Agent relative reasons: stem from personal desires
2. Agent neutral reasons: consider everyone equally.
Consequentialism is against common sense as it is act-centred as opposed to agent centred
