Deontology:

The Ethics of Immanuel Kant

DEONTOLOGY
Deontology is based on the “light” of one’s own reason when maturity and rational capacity take hold of a person’s
decision-making. As children, we are expected to obey and comply because we are still unfit to make good decisions on
our own. But when we become mature adults, we are encouraged to have courage to think on our own and to use our
rational will against external authorities (parents, the church, school, the government) as well as internal base impulses.
They are threats to our freedom or autonomy.

Impulse
Acting by impulse is acting without thinking or reason, like a cat which bites when its tail was stepped on. Without
thinking or reason, the cat bites the one who inflicted it pain. This is understandable in the case of animals for they are
not born with reason unlike humans and so they act on impulse. Could you think of situations when humans act based
on impulse?

A Person of Good Will

For Kant, a person of good will is a person who acts from a sense of duty. For a person who has a sense of duty
acts rightly even at difficult times.

By “sense of duty”, he means that it must be a voluntary action dictated by our reason. This acting is also based
on a “maxim” or a principle that serves as a guide to an action. A sense of duty is not a forced one or an inclination or
liking to act “according to duty”. The latter kind of acting is based on “impulse”. For example, obeying one’s parents
because it is the custom and paying debt to avoid being sued are acts according to duty (impulse) and not from a sense
of duty (guided by reason).

Maxims and Imperatives

Not all maxims or principles that guide human actions are moral. For example, the belief that one should not wear her
wedding gown before the wedding is a principle that some follow but is not really moral nor immoral.

Kant divides maxims into two classes: the hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Imperatives are commands. In
Deontology, imperatives are the commands of our reason to live by a certain maxim.

A hypothetical imperative is the command of reason to make someone achieve one’s specific goals– a “means
to an end” and an action based on perceived consequences. For example, reason commands you to study hard if you
want to pass.

A categorical imperative is the command of reason to act in such a way without regard to any consequence. For
example, reason commands you to study hard because it is your moral duty to do so and not because you want to pass.

A maxim is morally good if it conforms to the categorical imperative.

A Formula in Determining the Categorical Imperative

The Universalizability Formulation:

Behave as if your conduct or action were to become a universal code of behavior or a general rule that all should follow.
Ask the question, “What if everybody behaves the way that I do? Will it be right?” Follow the Golden Rule, “Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.” To act humanely is to respect persons as the end itself and not as a
means to achieve a goal. Human beings are not instruments, they have dignity and value. Thus, all individuals should be
respected regardless of circumstances.
 Deontology:
The Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Examples of the Imperatives

Hypothetical Imperative Categorical Imperative

When in need of money, borrow from someone even if When in need of money, I will not borrow from anyone if
you have to make a lying promise that you will pay it I don’t have the capability to pay it back.
back though you don’t have the capability to do so.

I will not commit suicide because my family needs me. I will not commit suicide because it is a form of
disrespect to life.

I will study hard in order to pass. I will study hard simply because it is my moral duty to do
so.

I will act honestly so I will receive an award. I will act honestly because it is the right thing to do.

Loopholes of Deontology
• “People have the duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result.” It is uncompromising. What if lying
is the only way to protect someone from danger?

• It offers no solutions in instances when there is conflict of duties. Suppose Emma vows to keep her sibling’s
secret and then their mother asks her about it. She cannot tell the truth to their mother without breaking her
promise to her sibling. She cannot do both duties.

• If an act is done out of good will and duty, it is moral whatever the consequence. Suppose a doctor operates on
a patient but the patient dies in the end, is the act still moral?

• Considering the consequence of an act is inevitable/ unavoidable. Humans can’t help but think in terms of
actions and their corresponding consequences. Kant himself is still concerned with the consequence of the act
when he said that lying should not be done because promises would no longer be honored if lying becomes
universally moral.

• Kant removes the enjoyment in doing an act because he wants us to do it out of moral duty even if not in our
liking. For example, love is a strong liking or desire which is an important consideration before marrying
someone. Should we therefore marry out of duty or love?

Kant’s Good Contributions

• Kant teaches us to determine morality based on our reason, not based on culture and other people.

• Kant teaches us that the attainment of good moral character is through ourselves, we humans are the beginning
and the end ourselves. We do good because having a good will is in our nature.

• Kant wants us to be consistent in our sense of duty to do the right thing so we won’t be hypocrites (only doing
what’s right when convenient and beneficial for us).

• Kant’s emphasis on good motives/intentions teaches the government to make and enforce laws truly beneficial
for its citizens and this principle of his became the basis for human rights. For human rights are actually more of
moral rights than legal rights. For what’s legal is not necessarily moral, vice-versa. When African Americans in US
history were denied the right to be discriminated against on the ground of color for example, was it a moral or
legal right denied from them? If it is a legal right, then the US were right to do it. If it is a moral right, then no
legal law can allow someone to be discriminated against because of color. How about legal rights that are not
necessarily moral? Could you think of some examples?