5 Deontological Ethics
Hunter Aiken
Table of Contents
Introduction
Is morality just all about happiness and pleasure? One essential ingredient to discussions about morality is the notion that morality entails having duties and obligations. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) thought that in order to be moral, we need to follow rules or maxims which, when discovered by the use of reason, can guide us to rationally grounded answers about what we ought to do. Kant calls such maxims categorical imperatives, and they are distinct from hypothetical imperatives (Kant 2017).
Hypothetical imperatives are moral claims that take the shape of ‘if you want x, then you need to do y.’ For instance, ‘if you want to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people, then you are morally obligated to do the action which would do so.’ Under hypothetical imperatives, there are a number of different outcomes in which the happiness of the greatest number could be satisfied (Kant 2017).
On the other hand, there are some moral claims that are absolute commands. They make moral claims to which there are no exceptions to the rule, and the outcome is irrelevant to the moral standing of the action. These are called categorical imperatives. There are two different kinds of categorical imperatives that Kant (2017) lists:
- To ‘act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’
- To never treat persons and others as mere means to an end, but treat them as ends in themselves.
Frankena questions the status of these maxims: “they might be necessary, but are they sufficient for determining what is actually moral and obligatory?” Frankena argues that there are some things which would satisfy the criteria of Kant’s maxims, but it does not mean that its the morally right thing to do. It also depends on the moral point of view from which we make moral laws from. Is our moral point of view to protect our own self-interests? Or is it from the point of view of genuine concern for well-being (Frankena 1973)?
In contrast, Ursula K. LeGuin walks us through a world of morality that is an inversion of the Kantian version. In the world of Omelas, no one appears to adhere to the Kantian system of morality, and they are much more attuned to the vision of utilitarianism. Is a world where everyone is happy worth the incredible suffering of one person? LeGuin prompts us to take the second categorical imperative much more seriously as she walks us through the world of Omelas (LeGuin 1973).
Links to the Material
- “Kant’s Theory” by William Frankena (1973) — Scroll to the bottom of the page to find the William Frankena reading for ‘Kant’s Theory’.
- “Those Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. LeGuin (1973)
Discussion Questions
- Think about your life. Do you think there are things you “ought to do” just because its the right thing to do?
- Do you think that there are things you ought to do irrespective of your desires and inclinations?
- What are categorical and hypothetical imperatives? Do you think that rules of etiquette are categorical or hypothetical?
- Can you think of some examples where you might be treating someone solely as a means to an end?
- Would capital punishment pass the 2nd categorical imperative test?
- How might the 2nd categorical imperative relate to prostitution? Do you think that Kant would say that it is morally permissible?
- Why might Kant’s theory be well placed to respect people’s rights?
- Do you think we have any moral obligations towards animals? What would Kant say?
- What role do you think intuitions should have in assessing moral theories?
Thought Experiments
- Should we keep our promises?
- Suppose that you made a promise to a friend that you would help them study for your philosophy class. They are struggling with the course content and you, being the class whiz, are the only one who can help them. On your way to help them study, you see someone who desperately needs to be taken to the hospital, and you are the only one with a vehicle to do so. If you help this person, you will not be able to help your friend study. Who should you help?
- The Lifeboat
- You are in a lifeboat with limited space, and only one more person can be saved. There are two people in the water, one of whom is a prominent scientist who could benefit humanity significantly, and the other is a loved one. Who do you save?
- The Drowning Person
- As you are taking a hike in the winter near a lake, suppose that you see someone drowning in a lake. The lake has barely frozen over, and you are unsure if you might fall through if you step on it. However, there is still a possibility that you can save them. Should you save them? Now, imagine you were the person in the lake and someone else was thinking about helping you. Does this change your answer?
- Good Intentions and Bad Outcomes
- Imagine you are working at a hardware store and are assisting a customer by retrieving something heavy from the top of the shelf. As you are moving the heavy item, it slips out from your grip and falls on the customer you were trying to help and seriously injures them. Should you be held responsible for what happened?
- The Judge
- As a judge, you must decide a case where the evidence overwhelmingly points to the guilt of the accused, but there is a minor technicality that could acquit them. Letting the guilty person go free would uphold the letter of the law, but convicting them might better serve justice. How should you decide?
Further Reading
- “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant (2017)
- “Kant’s Moral Philosophy” by Robert Johnson and Adam Cureton (2022) (in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- “How to Include the Severely Disabled in a Contractarian Theory of Justice” by Cynthia Stark (2007) (via the TRU Library)
- “Kantian Deontology” by Joseph Kranak (2019)
Bibliography
Frankena, William K. 1973. “Egotistical and Deontological Ethics: Kant’s Theory.” In Ethics. https://www.ditext.com/frankena/ethics.html.
Johnson, Robert and Adam Cureton. 2024. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified September 21, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/kant-moral/.
Kant, Immanuel. 2017. “Immanuel Kant – On Moral Principles.” In The Originals: Classic Readings in Western Philosophy, edited by Jeff McLaughlin. Victoria, BC: BCcampus; Kamloops, BC: Thompson River University. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/classicreadings/chapter/immanuel-kant-on-moral-principles/.
LeGuin, Ursula K. 1973. “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” In The Wind’s Twelve Quarters. https://shsdavisapes.pbworks.com/f/Omelas.pdf.
Stark, Cynthia A. 2007. “How to Include the Severely Disabled in a Contractarian Theory of Justice.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15, no. 2 (June): 127–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00257.x.
How to Cite This Page
Aiken, Hunter. 2024. “Deontological Ethics.” In Introduction to Ethics, edited by Jenna Woodrow, Hunter Aiken, and Calum McCracken. Kamloops, BC: TRU Open Press. https://introductiontoethics.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/deontological-ethics/.
Attribution
Unless otherwise noted, the “Discussion Questions” section is adapted from “Kantian Ethics” by Andrew Fisher and Mark Dimmock (2019) in Phronesis [edited by Henry Imler] under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
