More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyse Immanuel Kant’s teachings on deontology
Deontology vs utilitarianism
Analyse Immanuel Kant’s teachings on deontology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analyse Immanuel Kant’s teachings on deontology
Deontology According to deontology, people have an obligation that is imposed upon them by the duty to perform certain actions without due consideration on their consequential outcomes, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). This explains the instances where it is morally justified to perform a certain action whose pain is greater than the collective pleasures that can be derived from it, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). One of the major contributors to the deontological ethical theory is Emmanuel Kant. Deontologists include other ideologies that are inherently lacking among the consequentialist theories, particularly the utilitarianism. These aspects include the duty to act as well as a consideration of the intention to do what is right against what is wrong, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). Deontological theorists argue that good intentions or good will is what informs the moral worth of an action and not just a consideration of the …show more content…
The underpinning principle of deontological ethical theory is the categorical imperative that refers to an inherent absolute and unconditional command that tells people what they ought to do in a particular situation or should do in their present situations, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). The deontological ethical theory is against the treating of individuals as means to an end and supports the need to treat individuals as ends in themselves, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). Justifications and Objections to Normative Ethical Systems in Law Enforcement Most often than not, law enforcement agents use some techniques that may be regarded as morally right or wrong depending on the ethical framework from which one approaches such
Deontology theory defines an ethical action as one that adheres to a set of rules and duties. PharmaCARE’s actions are unethical by way of this moral compass because the firm has failed to perform in accordance with one very important duty, the duty to safeguard human dignity and basic human rights. Paying $1 a day to its workers and not providing them with even the most basic of amenities is a gross violation of the firm’s obligation to safeguard human rights, which in itself is a morally required behavior and applicable almost universally. PharmaCARE is not treating the Colberians like the treat their executives, nor are they treating the community there as they treat the communities in the
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,
8- Alexander, Larry, Alexander,. "Deontological Ethics." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system while deontology is faulty.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Deontology is when an action is considered morally good because of the action itself not the product of the action ("Deontological Ethics"). When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Deontology in Immanuel Kant’s point of view is all about duty and not inclination of morality. For example, the First Proposition of Morality is an action that must be done from duty to have moral worth (298). In other words, if one were feeling generous and wanted to give money to the ones who really need it, this technically would not be moral worthy according to Kant. The reason why for this is because that person did not do it out of duty but instead out of free will. For one’s action to have moral worth, it could be an example of one going to work everyday. Everyone has their own specific job to do at work and that is their duty. All in all, Kant views that deontology must come from an action of duty in order for it to be moral worthy and it is not the consequences that determines what is right or wrong.
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The
A deontologist asserts that you should do your duty even if you or others suffer as a consequence. Deontology is seen as an obligation to protect regardless of the impact it has on others, whether it be people, animals, and/or the environment and so on. “Deontology focuses on the duties and obligations one has in carrying out actions rather than on the consequences of those actions” (Mosser, 2013). According to deontologist Immanuel Kant, when doing your duty as a deontologist there are “categorical imperatives” that should be followed. In other words there are exceptions for why one is not taking action. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” (Kant,