Deontological ethics

"Deontic" redirects here. For the linguistic term, see Linguistic modality.

"Deontology" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the opposite of Ontology.

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the

normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on
whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather
than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as
duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly
contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this
terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current,
specialized definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical
Theory. Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it
prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics. The more general
sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de
deontology (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 (ethical naturalism), religious law, or a set of
personal or cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal
desires). Much of definitions on deontological ethics is found in an ancient
Tamil literature Thirukural, which is believed to be written in between 300
BCE and 5th century CE

Deontological philosophies
There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

Kantianism

Main article: Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different
reasons. First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act
from duty . 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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 . 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… All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth.… This is
because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they
bear the name of principles.

Contemporary deontology
 A typical example of epistemic authority in Bochenski's usage would be "the
relation of a teacher to his 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.
 An example of deontic authority would be the relation between an employer
and his 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.

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. 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.

Deontology and consequentialism

Principle of permissible harm
Frances Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm(1996) is an effort to derive a
deontological constraint that coheres with our considered case judgments while also
relying heavily on Kant's categorical imperative.The principle states that one may harm
in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good
itself. This principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered
case judgments, many of which involve deontological intuitions. For instance, Kamm
argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs
in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a
runaway trolley that would otherwise kill five innocent, immobile people, onto a
sidetrack where only one innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes
the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and
other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we
may not act to bring about good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case.

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. 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.
Virtues and consequences
Attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with virtue-based ethics and
consequentialism. Iain King's 2008 book How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All
the Time uses quasi-realism and a modified form of utilitarianism to develop
deontological principles that are compatible with ethics based on virtues and
consequences. King develops a hierarchy of principles to link his meta-ethics, which are
more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he
presents in his book.