Deontology

Political obligation has always been a matter of discussion. There have been so many approaches
given to explain the political obligation. One of such theory is deontology. Many people follow
ethical approaches that are called deontological. This word comes from "deon" or "duty". In
other words, deontological thinking is based on the idea that we have a duty to do certain things
and to not do certain things. For example, if you were one of the students who refused to shoot
one of the Indians, it might have been because you felt you had a duty to follow the
commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." This sentence becomes a rule that you attempt to live by.
Deontologists do not look at how much good might be caused by an action. They look at the
action itself, deciding whether it is prohibited or made obligatory by one of their rules. Usually,
the rules are expressed negatively: do not lie, do not steal, do not harm the innocent. In a few
cases, the rules are expressed positively: keep your promises; treat all persons as beings with
rights, tell the truth.
Deontological ethics:
Ethical theories that maintain that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its
instrinsic qualities, and not (as inconsequentialism) on the nature of its consequences.
Deontoligal ethics holds that at least some acts are morally wrong in themselves (e.g., lying
breaking a promise, punishing the innocent, murder). It often finds expression in slogan such as
Duty for dutys sake. Deontology theories are often formulated in such a way that the rightness
of an action consist in its conformity to a moral rule or command, such as Do not bear false
witness. The most important exponent of deontological ethics is Immauel Kant. See also
categorical imperative.
Deontological ethics has at least three important features. First, duty should be done for dutys
sake. The rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is, at least in part, a matter of the intrinsic
moral features of that kind of act or rule. For example, act of lying , promise breaking, or murder
are intrinsically wrong and we have a duty not to do these things.

There is a common critics of deontological moral system that it does not provide any clear way
to resolve conflicts between moral duties. Both aspects should be considered in deontological
moral system, one not to lie and the other not to harm others, for example, if a person is in such a
situation that he has to chose whether he will have lie or to murder. The response could be he
has to choose for the lesser of two evils, so the moral choice is based on consequentialist theory
rather than deontological basis..The deontologic argument is that it's irrational to judge an action
by its results, because results can be unpredictable and you have to decide on an action before
knowing the results. A deontologist would say it's rational to procede from first principles -whether they're rational first principles like Kant's (act in a way that you would have your action
become a universal rule) or they're theistic first principles like "Thou shall not kill" (which are
only rational if you accept the theistic authority behind them.

Human should be treated as object of instrinsic moral value; that is, as ends in themselves and
never as mere means to some other end (say, overall happiness or welfare). This notion is very
difficult to justify if one abandons the theological doctrine of man being made in the image of
God. Nevertheless, justified, deontological ethics imply that humans are ends in themselves with
intrinsic values.