Deontology
Part of a series on |
Ethics |
---|
This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation. |
In
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.[8] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement).[9][10] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, 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 (
Deontological philosophies
There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.
Kantianism
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[11][12] First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (Pflicht).[13] 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 highest good must be both good in itself and good without qualification.[14] Something is "good in itself" when it is intrinsically good; and is "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 not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, 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.[14]
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."[14] People "act out of respect for the moral law" when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. Thus, 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, i.e. out of respect for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."[15]
Kant's three 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; and
- 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 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.
In his essay, "
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 [Rechtsquelle
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
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
One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism 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
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 and epistemic authority:[24]
- 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.[25]
- 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.[25]
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.[26] He implies that proportional duty and obligation are essential components of the ways in which we decide to act, and he defends natural law against opposing theories. He also expresses admiration for virtue ethics, and believes that the two ethical theories are not, as is frequently portrayed, mutually exclusive.[26]
Deontology and consequentialism
Principle of permissible harm
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".[28] 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.[29]
Reconciling deontology with consequentialism
Various attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with
Secular deontology
See also
- Convention (norm) – Set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards
- Categorical imperative – Central concept in Kantian moral philosophy
- Deontic logic – Field of philosophical logic
- Deontological libertarianism– Political ideology
- Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development – Psychological theory describing the evolution of moral reasoning
- Meta-ethics– Branch of ethics seeking to understand ethical properties
- Moral responsibility – Concept in ethics
- Norm (philosophy) – Sentences used to effect an action
- Plank of Carneades – Thought experiment proposed by Carneades of Cyrene
- Rule according to higher law – Belief that universal principles of morality override unjust laws
- The Right and the Good – 1930 book by Scottish philosopher David Ross
References
- ^ "Deontology dictionary definition | deontology defined".
- ISBN 978-0205017737.
- ^ "Deontology". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 27 May 2020.
- ISBN 978-0312209230.
- ^ "Next Stop: 'Trolley Problem'". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 25 July 2023.
- ISBN 9780415170734.
- OCLC 41645965.
- ISBN 978-0070042568.
- ^ Bentham, Jeremy. 1816. Chrestomathia. London. p. 213–14:
"For a synonym, Dicastic Ethics may have the single-worded appellativeDeontology.*" 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 [petitio principii—i.e. a begging of the question—an assumption of the matter in dispute."
- Longman, Rees, Orme, Browne, Green, and Longman. p. 21: "Deontology is derived from the Greek words, το δεον (that which is proper) and Λογια, 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."
- ^ Orend, Brian. 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.
- ^ Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill, trans. 1889. The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. [Preface and Introduction to Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, 1797]. Abbott's deontology translates Kant's Pflichtenlehre.
- ^ Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
- Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10th ed.), translated by T. K. Abbott. Project Gutenberg. p. 23.
- ^ "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.
- ^ Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." Noûs 17(3):387–407.
- ^ Cudworth, Ralph. [1731] 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, edited by S. Hutton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b c Skelton, Anthony (2012). "William David Ross". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
- ^ a b c d Ross, W. D. (2002) [1930]. The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
- ^ Simpson, David L. "William David Ross". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
- ^ Borchert, Donald (2006). "Ross, William David". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan.
- S2CID 170734138.
- ISBN 978-0814700501.
- ^ .
- ^ ISBN 978-0-691-18303-9.
- ^ Kamm, Frances M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ISBN 978-0-19-518969-8.
- hdl:11343/52416.
- ^ a b Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael (21 November 2007). "Deontological Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2020 Edition. Retrieved 30 September 2023.
- ISBN 978-1-84706-347-2. Page 220 of this book lists 14 deontological principles, which King describes as "The first fourteen principles of right and wrong."
- ^ Louden, Robert B (1996). "Toward a Genealogy of 'Deontology'". Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:4. Johns Hopkins University Press., p. 587
Bibliography
- McGraw Hill.
- Harcourt, Brace and Co.
- Flew, Antony. 1979. "Consequentialism." In A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's.
- Kamm, Frances M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
- —— 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: .
- ISBN 978-0-06-131159-8.
- «Législation, éthique et déontologie», Bruxelles: Editions de Boeck Université, 2011, Karine BREHAUX, ISBN 978-2-84371-558-7
- Olson, Robert G. 1967. "Deontological Ethics." In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Collier Macmillan.
- Clarendon Press.
- Salzman, Todd A. 1995. Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology. University Press.
- Pearson Longman.
- Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." Noûs 17(3):387–407.
External links
- Kantian Ethics – Summary A concise summary of the key details of Kant's deontology
- Freedom and the Boundary of Morals, Lecture 22 from Stephen Palmquist's book, The Tree of Philosophy (fourth edition, 2000).
- Deontology and Ethical Ends
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Special Obligations
- Log in to ePortfolios@FedUni – ePortfolios@FedUni Deontology framework ethics