Deontology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pfhorrest (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 16 May 2012 (Revert to revision 492716590 dated 2012-05-15 16:31:24 by Byelf2007 using popups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Deontic" redirects here. For the linguistic term, see Linguistic modality.

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek deon, "obligation, duty"; and -logia) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty".[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism.[3] Deontological ethics is also contrasted to pragmatic ethics.

Deontological philosophies

There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

Contemporary deontology

Contemporary deontologists include Thomas Nagel, Thomas Scanlon, Roger Scruton and Frances Kamm.

Frances Kamm's "Principle of Permissible Harm" is an effort to derive a deontological constraint which coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's Categorical Imperative.[4] The Principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case judgements, many of which involve deontological intuitions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would otherwise kill five innocent and immobile people onto a side track where one innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case.

In 2007, Kamm published a book that presents new theory that incorporates aspects of her "Principle of Permissible Harm", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity".[5] Like the "Principle of Permissible Harm", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity" is an attempt to provide a deontological prescription for determining the circumstances in which people are permitted to act in a way that harms others.

Divine command theory

Main article: Divine command theory

Although not all Deontologists are religious, some believe in The 'Divine Command Theory'. 'The Divine Command Theory' is a cluster of related theories that state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.[6] William of Ockham, René Descartes and eighteenth-century Calvinists all accepted versions of this moral theory, according to Ralph Cudworth, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.[7] The Divine Command Theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant
Main article: Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[8][9] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[10] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way; that one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[11] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good, and "good without qualification", when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[11]

Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to determine that the person has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.[11] People 'act out of respect for the moral law' when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. So, the only thing that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is that person's duty. Thus, according to Kant, goodness depends on rightness.

Kant's two significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:

  • Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
  • 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.

Moral absolutism

Some deontologists are moral absolutists, believing that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them as well as the consequences. Immanuel Kant, for example, argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. Non-absolutist deontologists, such as W. D. Ross, hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do. Jonathan Baron and Mark Spranca use the term Protected Values when referring to values governed by deontological rules.

Etymology

The term "deontological" was first used to describe the current commonly understood definition by C. D. Broad in his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[12]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Ethics-virtue", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. ^ Waller, Bruce N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman: 23.
  3. ^ Flew, Antony. 1979. "Consequentialism". In A Dictionary of Philosophy, (2nd Ed.). New York: St Martins: 73.
  4. ^ Kamm, F. M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. ^ Kamm, F. M. 2007. 'Chapter 5: Toward the Essence of Nonconsequentialist Constraints on Harming.'. In Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518969-8.
  6. ^ Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory". Noûs, Vol. 17, No. 3: 387-407.
  7. ^ Cudworth, Ralph. 1731. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. Reprinted in 1996. Sarah Hutton, (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. ^ Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
  9. ^ Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.
  10. ^ Kant, Immanuel. 1780. "Preface". In The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
  11. ^ a b c Kant, Immanuel. 1785. "First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical", Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
  12. ^ Beauchamp, Tom L. 1991 Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill: 171.

References

  • Beauchamp, Tom L. 1991. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Broad, C. D. 1930. Five Types of Ethical Theory. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
  • Flew, Antony. 1979. 'Consequentialism'. In A Dictionary of Philosophy, (2nd Ed.). New York: St Martins.
  • Kamm, F. M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kamm, F. M. 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518969-8.
  • Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-06-131159-6.
  • Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan.
  • Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Salzmann, Todd A. 1995. Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology. University Press.
  • Waller, Bruce N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman.
  • Wierenga, Edward. 1983. 'A Defensible Divine Command Theory'. Noûs, 17 (3): 387-407. Dumaguete city.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deontology&oldid=492815518"