In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek language: and ) is the normative ethics theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[Jeremy Bentham. 1816. Chrestomathia. London. :
]
"For a synonym, Dicastic Ethics may have the single-worded Appelative Deontology. *"
Corresponding footnote: " * Deontology. From two Greek words, the first of which signifies fit, fitting, right, becoming, proper. Deontology—an account or indication of that which, on the occasion in question, whatsoever it be, is—(i.e. by him who speaks or writes, is regarded as being)— fit, fitting, becoming, proper. It is in sound only, and not in signification, that it has any connexion with the word Ethics , the use of such a word as Deontology affords a promise of being attended with considerable convenience. It will accord equally well with every system which ever has been, or ever can be, devised, in relation to the foundation of moral obligation :—in the use of it, no such incongruity and presumption is involved, as that which is called petitio principii —i.e. a begging of the question—an assumption of the matter in dispute."
[Jeremy Bentham. 1834. Deontology or, The Science of Morality , edited by John Bowring. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Browne, Green, and Longman. p. 21: "Deontology is derived from the Greek words, (that which is proper) and , knowledge – meaning the knowledge of what is right and proper; and it is here specially applied to the subject of morals, or that part of the field of action which is not the object of public legislation. As an art, it is the doing what is fit to be done; as a science, the knowing what is fit to be done on every occasion."] The more general sense of the word is retained in French language, especially in the term code de déontologie'' (ethical code), in the context of professional ethics.
Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a moral obligation may arise from an external or internal source, such as a set of rules inherent to the universe (ethical naturalism), religious law, or a set of personal or cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal desires).
Deontological philosophies
There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.
Kantianism
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.
[Brian Orend. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 19.][Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press. p. 160.] First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act from
duty (
Pflicht).
[
] 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 first argument begins with the premise that the Summum bonum must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10th ed.), translated by T. K. Abbott. Project Gutenberg. p. 23.]
Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative (a way of evaluating motivations for action) 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;
-
Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.
Kant argued that the only moral absolutism 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.
In his essay, "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns", arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that:["Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", Berlinische Blätter 1 (1797), 301–314; edited in: Werke in zwölf Bänden, vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), zeno.org/nid/20009192123.]
Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition ( mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right .… All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth.… This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles.
Divine command theory
Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the
divine command theory, which is actually a cluster of related theories that essentially state that an action is right if
God has decreed that it is right.
[Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." Noûs 17(3):387–407.] According to English philosopher
Ralph Cudworth, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and 18th-century
Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.
[Ralph Cudworth. 1731 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, edited by S. Hutton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]
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 Biblical 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 Coveting a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be Immorality to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.
One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian ethics from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.
Ross's deontological pluralism
W. D. Ross objects to Kant's monistic deontology, which bases ethics in only one foundational principle, the categorical imperative. He contends that there is a plurality (7, although this number is seen to vary to interpretation) of prima facie duties determining what is right.
These duties are identified by W. D. Ross:
-
the duty of fidelity (to keep promises and to tell the truth)
-
the duty of reparation (to make amends for wrongful acts)
-
the duty of gratitude (to return kindnesses received)
-
the duty of non-injury (not to hurt others)
-
the duty of beneficence (to promote the maximum of aggregate good)
-
the duty of self-improvement (to improve one's own condition)
-
the duty of justice (to distribute benefits and burdens equably).
One problem the deontological pluralist has to face is that cases can arise where the demands of one duty violate another duty, so-called moral dilemmas.
Contemporary deontology
Contemporary deontologists (i.e., scholars born in the first half of the 20th century) include Józef Maria Bocheński,
Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and
Roger Scruton.
Bocheński (1965) makes a distinction between Deontic logic and epistemology authority:[Bocheński, Józef. 1965. "Analysis of authority." Pp. 162–73 in The Logic of Religion. New York: New York University Press. .]
-
A typical example of epistemic authority in Bocheński's usage would be "the relation of a teacher to her students." A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey.
-
An example of deontic authority would be "the relation between an employer and her employee." An employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness.
[Brożek, Anna. 2013. " Bocheński on authority." Studies in East European Thought 65(1):115–33. .]
Scruton (2017), in his book On Human Nature, is critical of consequentialism and similar ethical theories, such as hedonism and utilitarianism, instead proposing a deontological ethical approach.
Deontology and consequentialism
Principle of permissible harm
Frances Kamm's "Principle of Permissible Harm" (1996) is an effort to derive a deontological constraint that coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's categorical imperative.
[Frances Kamm 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.] 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 judgments, many of which involve deontological
. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to
Organ harvesting in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a
trolley problem that would otherwise kill five
innocent, immobile people, onto a sidetrack where only 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 Intricate Ethics, a book that presents a new theory, the " Doctrine of Productive Purity", that incorporates aspects of her "Principle of Permissible Harm".[Frances Kamm 2007. "Toward the Essence of Nonconsequentialist Constraints on Harming." Ch. 5 in Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. .] Like the "Principle", 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.[Waugh, Laurence Francis Hogan. 2015. " Harming the innocent to save lives A critique of the Doctrine of Productive Purity" (Masters Research thesis). School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses. University of Melbourne. .]
Reconciling deontology with consequentialism
Various attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with
consequentialism. Threshold deontology holds that rules ought to govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross a stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over.
Theories put forth by
Thomas Nagel and Michael S. Moore attempt to reconcile deontology with consequentialism by assigning each a jurisdiction.
's 2008 book
How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time uses
quasi-realism and a modified form of
utilitarianism to develop deontological principles that are compatible with ethics based on
Virtue ethics and consequences. King develops a
hierarchy of principles to link his
meta-ethics, which is more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he presents in his book.
[ Page 220 of this book lists 14 deontological principles, which King describes as "The first fourteen principles of right and wrong."]
Secular deontology
Intuition-based deontology is a concept within
secular ethics. A classical example of literature on secular ethics is the
Tirukkural, authored by the ancient
Tamils Indian philosopher
Thiruvalluvar. It can be argued that some concepts from deontological ethics date back to this text. Concerning ethical intuitionism, 20th century philosopher C.D. Broad coined the term "deontological ethics" to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.
[Louden, Robert B (1996). "Toward a Genealogy of 'Deontology'". Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:4. Johns Hopkins University Press., p. 587]
See also
Bibliography
-
Tom Beauchamp 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.
-
Antony Flew. 1979. "Consequentialism." In A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's.
-
Frances Kamm 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
—— 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , .
-
-
«Législation, éthique et déontologie», Bruxelles: Editions de Boeck Université, 2011, Karine BREHAUX,
-
Olson, Robert G. 1967. "Deontological Ethics." In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by P. Edwards. London: Collier Macmillan.
-
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Salzman, Todd A. 1995. Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology. University press.
-
Bruce Waller 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.
External links
