Deontological Theory: Kant's Theory Of Duty

Kant’s theory
Deontological theory is a “theory of duty” (book). This theory focuses on what is right. It focuses on the duties that we have for ourselves and for one another. Jermey Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, was the inventor of deontological. He believed that this theory was guided in the same direction as the principle of utility. However, today deontological theories shows contrast with utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, who is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher, saw deontology as something that contradicts utilitarianism. The utilitarian theories focus on consequences over what is right. They focus on the quality and quantity of happiness that an action brings. Kant emphasizes that we “are worthy of happiness only when we

do our duty” (book). According to Kant and others who emphasize on duty, it does not matter what the consequences are, it only matters the things we ought to do [moral obligations]. Deontological theories focus on the right over the good; our actions and intentions over the benefits. Acting morally is not a way to make ourselves happy. Instead, morality allows us to become worthy of happiness. Morality is a “rational condition of happiness” (book 111), but what gives an act moral worth?
According to Kant, an act has moral worth only if the intentions of the person preforming the act has right motive and is not only acting for the benefits. To describe this in Kant’s terms, “we ought to not only act out of duty, but also according to duty” (book 114). To understand the reasoning on this matter, Kant examines the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. Let’s start of by understanding the term “imperative.” An imperative is “a form of statement that tells us to do something.” For example, “lock the door” and “you ought to pick up the trash.” A hypothetical imperative does not have a moral obligation tied to it. Instead, it is something you have to do to achieve what you want. For example, “If I want to medal at states, I need to practice more.” In this case, what you ought to do is a function of what you want to happen, which is to medal at states. In a hypothetical imperative you can avoid obligations simply by changing your wants. According to Kant, “these oughts are contingent,” meaning they are dependent on what you want to happen and only what you want to happen. They are not dependent on the desires of others and therefore they are individualized.
According to Kant, our moral obligations rely on what we ought to do for others and not on what we want to do.

This is known as the categorical imperative and it is “Kant’s test for right and wrong” (book 115). There are two forms of the categorical imperative that help formulate if an act is considered a moral obligation. To help grasp a better understanding on the matter, let’s start off by recalling that categorical means unconditional and applies to all persons, not just individuals. Therefore, categorical imperatives are universal. This brings us to Kant’s first form of the categorical imperative which states, “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law” (book 116). In other words, whatever you wish to act on make sure that you would do it again and that you would want everyone else to do it as well. For example, suppose you decided to steal a candy bar because you didn’t have money, but you were hungry. Now what would happen if everyone stole when they didn’t have money? Would you want this act to become a universal law? How are we supposed to decide when a law should become a universal practice? According to Kant, a law can only be universal if it is noncontradictory. In the stealing example, the law would become contradictory because if everyone stole, then no one would have money and therefore if you wanted to buy something you couldn’t. If everyone stole, then taking items would no longer be considered stealing and therefore you could not steal if you wanted to. Therefore stealing fails the test of Kant’s categorical imperative and is not considered morally correct.
The second act of Kant’s categorical imperative pertains to how we treat others. According to Kant, we must “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."

Goodwill is not necessarily seen as a person who does good, but a person who basis their decisions on the moral law. “The idea of goodwill is supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut)