Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice would clearly be optimal...
... middle of paper ...
...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals. From that opinion, one may assert that morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made.
So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making decisions. Therefore, one may conclude that the overall principles or deontology are correct and that this moral theory should not be dismissed.
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,
8- Alexander, Larry, Alexander,. "Deontological Ethics." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
I would respond to anyone suggesting that tolerating differing opinions weakens the authority of my position by giving the example of stubborn fundamentalists, who by blindly refuse to acknowledge any value in other people’s beliefs really reveal the limitations of their own beliefs insofar as they prevent them from seeing truth and beauty in anything but one’s self.
Moral Theory and Personal Relationships In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way.
From a deontology perspective, it is believed its doing what is right because its right. It is not concerned necessarily with impacts or weighing out what might happen. It is simply stating something is right and proceeding to do it. The first argument for deontology is that it is universal and applies to everyone and everywhere at all times and we all have a sense of what is good or bad. An example
The deontological approach is rooted in the belief that actions are not justified by their outcomes. This view maintains that there is a moral right and wrong that should be abided by. Regardless of the possible outcome this approach scrutinizes the means as the ends. The consequential approach is centered on the belief that the consequences of an action outweigh the action itself. In other words if killing a killer will lead to the safety of numerous people, while not killing him may allow him to escape the consequential approach would lean
Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system while deontology is faulty.
What is deontology? Deontology was created by Immanuel Kant, it is an ethical theory that places a strong emphasis on the relationship between the duty of humans and the morality of human actions. In deontology an action is considered good morally if the action itself is deemed good, not by the product of the action. The most significant and important concept to remember, understand, and comprehend about deontological moral systems is that their moral principles are completely separated from any consequences which following those principles might have. To a true deontologist whether a situation n is good or bad is in direct correlation with if the actions that situation(s) about was right or wrong. The premier founder of deontology Immanuel
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The