Indian school OF

mines

KANT’S DEONTOLOGY

Submitted by-
Sameer biswas
Admn. No.- 2010JE0993
Sec.- E
INDEX
  INTRODUCTION
 IMMANUEL KANT
 DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
 WHY IMMANUEL KANT’S THEORY OF
ETHICS IS CONSIDERED AS
DEONTOLOGICAL?
 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
 CRITICISM
 REFRENCES

INTRODUCTION
Immanuel kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several
different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way,
people must act from duty (deon). 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, one must act from
duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good
in itself, and good without qualification. Something is "good in itself"
when it isintrinsically 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,perservance 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. ”

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 or she 'acts out of respect for the moral law'. 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.

IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian city of
Königsberg (Germany). He studied and worked at the local
university until three years before his death and never travelled
further than fifty miles outside of the city. He was a philosopher
and scientist, working in many areas including mathematics,
astrophysics, geography and anthropology. He wrote several
dense, difficult-to-read but highly influential texts regarding
metaphysics, meta- and practical morality, science, history and
politics. He was the first recorded scholar to suggest that some
of the faint nebulae visible with a telescope are actually separate
universes. His new ideas about the nature of reality and free
will were widely condemned at the time in which he published
his works but have remained prominently influential to this
day.

In terms of ethics, the most significant of his works are

Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of
Practical Reason (1788) and Metaphysics of Morals (1798).
These texts constitute the foundation of Kant’s own moral
philosophy, mostly focusing on morality and action.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
Deontological ethics or deontology (from greek δέον, deon,
"obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics
that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts,
rather than third-party consequences of the act as
inconsequentialism, or the intentions of the person doing the
act as in virtue ethics. Deontologists look at rules and
duties. For example, the act may be considered the right thing
to do even if it produces a bad consequence, if it follows
the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have
done unto them”, and even if the person who does the act lacks
virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.According to
deontology, we have a duty to act in a way that does those
things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for
example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule
utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of
our actions are not important in and of themselves, and our
intentions are not important in and of themselves.

WHY IMMANUEL KANT’S THEORY OF ETHICS

IS CONSIDERED AS DENTOLOGICAL?
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological
for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in
the morally right way, people must act from duty
(deon). 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, one must
act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good
must be both good in itself, and good without
qualification. 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.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS Vs
CONSEQUENTIALIST(TELEOLOGICAL)
ETHICAL THEORIES
Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted
with consequentialist or teleological ethical theories, according
to which the rightness of an action is determined by its
consequences. However, there is a difference between
deontological ethics and . Deontologists who are also moral
absolutists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what
consequences follow from them.  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.

Our hypothetical deontologist claims that consequentialism

absolves its adherents of all personal responsibility for three
presumed reasons: (a) consequentialism removes all personal
decision, as the consequentialist simply turns himself into a
"slave of utility maximization"; (b) consequentialism allows an
agent to rationalize away atrocities such as the injury of one
person for the benefit of the many; (c) consequentialism allows
one to shrug off disastrous states of affairs that are brought
about when one's consequentialist moral calculus advises a
course of action that turns out to be wrong.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept
in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, as well as
modern deontological ethics. Introduced in Kant's Groundwork
for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of
evaluating motivations for action.
The categorical imperative is sometimes referred to as the
universal law as Kant believed that by using reason one could
determine whether a maxim was categorical or not and
because all
human beings are rational then the same categorical
imperatives will hold for everyone.
We use reason and a test of universalisability to determine
whether a moral principle is a categorical imperative (or
universal law). Kant expressed the universal law using the
following formula:

Act only according to the maxim whereby you

can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law

Using reasoned judgement we can apply this formula to any

maxim and discover if it is morally permissible. Take the
example of picking flowers from the local park - the flowers are
very pretty and when I see them I immediately want to pick
some to take some home with me. Using the formula of the
universal law (categorical imperative), imagining the scenario if
everyone were to adopt the maxim pick flowers whenever you
wish. Do any irrationalities/ contradictions arise from the
adoption of such a maxim as universal law? Certainly, if
everyone were to do this there would be no flowers left in the
park and this would contradict our original motivation for
desiring the flowers. It would be more rational to go to a flower
shop and buy similar flowers or grow my own.
There are a few acts that are always forbidden - lying so
negatively affects trust between people and the meaning of
truth that it is always forbidden. This remains the case when
lying would have advantageous or even morally admirable
consequences. Imagine a psychotic patient wants to kill your
colleague (a psychiatrist) who had her committed. If you lie
about the whereabouts of your colleague then an innocent life
will be saved. But moral duty forbids you from lying!
Alternative formulation of categorical imperative
Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different
ways. The most important of these is the formula of humanity -
this states:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity,

whether in your own person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end
and never simply as a means

This is a personal perspective on the same moral theory. To fail

to do this would be to treat others in a way that would contradict
the moral law - If I steal a book from Stephen, I am treating him
as a means only (to obtain a book). If I ask to have his book, I
am respecting his right to say no, and am thereby treating him
as an end-in-himself, not as a means to an end. If I only ask for
the book in order to appear nice (and to make Stephen more
likely to do things for me in the future), then I am also treating
him as a means only. It is true that everyone uses people as a
means to an ends - bus/taxi-drivers get us where we want to
go, factory workers are the means to producing objects and
ultimately profit for their employer - but using people only to get
what we want and consistently disrespecting their human worth
is against the moral law. An example of this would be a factory
owner who imposes inhumane working conditions and pays
less than minimum wage (as long as he can get away with it).

CRITICISM

One of the biggest difficulties with Kantian ethics is that it

discounts outcome as a valid factor in evaluating the moral
worth of an action. While it is not necessarily wise to rely solely
on outcome (as in utilitarianism), it is problematic to discount
the outcome altogether - as we saw in the dilemma of lying (to
the psychotic killer).
The life and dignity of every human individual is inviolable
(sacred) - based on the formula of humanity. This means that it
would be impermissible to enslave 20 people regardless of
whether or not it meant that 80 people with disabilities would be
aided by the slaves and lead much better lives. This seems like
an advantage Kantian ethics has over utilitarianism. But what if
killing one person would save the lives of 3 million people who
will otherwise die? This would also be impermissible according
to Kantian principles.
At times Kantian moral duty seems to conflict with our natural
inclinations/common sense. If we obey the moral law rather
than our intuitions we are acting morally.
Deontological ethics is mostly concerned with what not to do -
the categorical imperative can only guide our conduct in so far
as advising us against morally wrong acts. It does not tell us
what to live/aim for or what to value.

REFRENCES-

 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals(e.books)

 Wikipedia