Exploration of Deontological Ethics

Exploration of Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics is concerned not with the action itself but the

consequences of the action. Moral value is conferred by virtue of the

actions in themselves. If a certain act is wrong, then it is wrong in

all circumstances and conditions, irrespective of the consequences.

This view of ethic stands in opposition to teleological views such as

utilitarianism, which hold the view that the consequences of an action

determine its moral worth. Kant’s theory is deontological because it’s

based on duty. To act morally is to do one’s duty, and one’s duty is

to obey the moral law. Kant argued that we should not be side-tracked

by feeling and inclination. We should not act out of love and

compassion, and he also adds that it is not our duty to things that we

are unable to do. For Kant, moral statements are prescriptive, if we

say we ‘ought’ to do something means that we ‘can’ do something.

Kant maintains that man seeks an ultimate end called the supreme good,

the ‘summum bonum’. However, since it is impossible for human beings

to achieve this state in one lifetime, he deduced that we had to have

immortal souls to succeed. While Kant rejected theological arguments

for the existence of God, his ethical theory assumes immortality and

God’s existence of God, his ethical theory assumes immortality and

God’s existence. Kant believed that the afterlife and God must exist

to provide an opportunity for reaching this supreme good. For Kant,

morality was a lead to God.

Kant states in his book, Groundwork for the metaphysics of Morals

(1785), that ‘Good will shines forth like a precious well’ he argues

that...

... middle of paper ...

...ajority.

In some circumstances duties conflict; if running a hospital you have

a fixed budget and decision would have to be made as to who gets what

treatment. Kant would find making such decision very difficult.

There is a weakness with universability because of the different moral

dilemmas that exists. Are any two moral dilemmas the same? How similar

do they have to be to be covered by the same maxim? Are murder, self

defence and the defence of the realm all to be covered by one maxim

about taking human life, or can some kinds of killing to be justified

and excluded because they are different?

Teleological thinking looks towards the consequences of the act out of

compassion, but Kant rejects both which is a challenge in moral

deliberation. Nevertheless, Kant proposes a reason based case for

moral behaviour.