Slide 1

Deontology - Part 1
HY0001 Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Authors:
Andres Luco | Preston Greene | Grace Boey |
Christina Chuang | Shen-yi Liao

Notes: NA
Slide 2

Tax Evasion
Retrieved October 25, 2016 from
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Countries_with_Largest_Tax_Evasion_Amount_v3.jpg 2

Notes: NA
Slide 3

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be

able to:

• Explain the difference between

consequentialism and deontology.
• Explain the two formulas of Kant’s
Categorical Imperative.
• Evaluate some “attractions” that make Kant’s
deontology plausible as an ethical theory.

Notes: NA
Slide 4

Deontology

• Deontological ethics is a family of moral theories

in normative ethics.

• Deontological ethics denies consequentialism.

• According to consequentialism, the moral status

of an action, policy, motive, or rule depends only
on whether it produces the best consequences.

• According to deontological ethics, the moral

status of an action does not just depend on the
consequences of the action it produces. Some
actions can be morally right or wrong, regardless
of their consequences.
4

Notes:

The “moral status” of an action is its moral rightness, wrongness, or permissibility.

The root word “deon” means duty in Greek. So the adjective “deontic” means of or relating
to duty.
Slide 5

Kant’s Deontological Ethics

• By far the most influential version of deontological

ethics is the moral theory of Immanuel Kant (1724
- 1804), a German philosopher.

• Kant believed that moral truths are based

on reason.

• Ultimate standard of morality:

The Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant
(1724 - 1804)
5

Notes:

Kant believed that moral truths are based on reason. He argues that all the correct moral
principles are logically derived from an ultimate standard of morality that any rational
person would accept. He calls this standard the Categorical Imperative.

Kant’s moral theory is a version of deontological ethics, since the Categorical Imperative is a
rule that’s supposed to determine the moral status of actions, and the Categorical
Imperative requires or forbids actions regardless of an action’s consequences.
Slide 6

The Categorical Imperative (CI)

“Morality is not properly the doctrine of how me

make ourselves happy, but how we make ourselves
worthy of happiness.”
~ Immanuel Kant

Kant developed three formulations of the

Categorical Imperative.

He thought that all these formulas of the

Categorical Imperative are
“practically equivalent”.

Notes:

Kant insisted that all the formulas of the Categorical Imperative are “practically equivalent”
in that they imply the same conclusions about what we morally ought to do.
Slide 7

The Categorical Imperative (CI)

Here we will focus on two formulas of the CI:

The Principle of Universalisability

• An action is morally right if and only if it is
universalisable.

The Principle of Humanity

• An action is morally right if and only if it
treats human beings as ends, and never as
mere means.

Notes:

Kant insisted that all the formulas of the Categorical Imperative are “practically equivalent”
in that they imply the same conclusions about what we morally ought to do.
Slide 8

The Principle of Universalisability

The Principle of Universalisability:

• An action is morally right if and only if it is universalisable.

The first formula of the CI is called the Principle of

Universalisability.

According to the Principle of Universalisability,

an action is morally right if and only if it
is universalisable.

Kant proposed a two-step test for verifying the

universalisability of an action.

Notes: NA
Slide 9

The Principle of Universalisability

The Principle of Universalisability:

• An action is morally right if and only if it is universalisable.

To test whether an action is universalisable,

follow these steps:
1. Imagine a world in which everyone performs the action.
2. Confirm that in such a world, both of these two
statements are true:
• The goal of this action can be achieved in this world.
• Nothing essential to the agent’s will would be
endangered, given that everyone in this world does
this action.

If both statements are true, then the action is

universalisable, and hence, morally right.
9

Notes:

According to the Principle of Universalisability, any action that is universalisable is morally

right.

On the other hand, according to the Principle, an action that is not universalisable is immoral
(morally wrong).

The “agent” is the individual who carries out the action in question.
Slide 10

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Kant discusses a couple of examples to

illustrate how the Principle of
Universalisability should be applied.

• The first example has to do with lying.

Kant uses the Principle of
Universalisability to demonstrate that
lying is immoral.

10

Notes: NA
Slide 11

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Imagine that there is something really expensive

that you want to buy, but you don’t have
enough money.

• However, you happen to have a very wealthy

acquaintance, and you know that he will give you
a loan if you ask for one. The loan would cover the
cost of the thing you wanted to buy.

• Suppose in this case, even if you never repaid the

loan, you will not suffer punishment or retaliation
from your acquaintance, nor from anyone else.

11

Notes: NA
Slide 12

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Question:

• In this scenario, is it morally permissible

to lie to your acquaintance by promising
to repay the loan, when really you have
no intention of doing so?

12

Notes:

Kant reasons that statement 1 would be false. In a world where everyone makes a lying
promise to repay a loan, the goal of lying in this way cannot be achieved. In such a world,
making a lying promise to repay a loan would not be an effective means of getting money.

Here is Kant’s argument:

If everyone in the world makes a lying promise to repay a loan in cases like this one, then
everyone would see through the lie. In such a world, if I asked you for a loan to buy a car I
can’t afford, and I promised that I’d pay you back, you would know I’m lying. You’d know
I’m lying, because in this world everyone, including you, makes lying promises to repay loans
in order to get something they want. Knowing this, people would not be so foolish as to give
loans to those who make lying promises for them, because they would know that they will
never get the money back.

In a world where everyone makes lying promises to repay loans, the act of making such lying
promises would not be an effective means of achieving the goal of getting money. So, Kant
concludes, the act of making lying promises to repay loans is immoral.
Slide 13

The Universalisability Test: Examples

To answer this question, apply the

Universalisability Test:

• First, imagine a world in which everyone

makes a lying promise to repay a loan, in
cases like the one imagined.

13

Notes: NA
Slide 14

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Second, confirm that in such a world, both

these two statements are true:
• Statement 1: The goal of this action can
be achieved in this world.
• Statement 2: Nothing essential to the
agent’s will would be endangered, given
that everyone in this world does
this action.

Kant reasons that statement 1 is false.

Therefore, the action is immoral (morally
impermissible).
14

Notes:

Kant reasons that statement 1 would be false. In a world where everyone makes a lying
promise to repay a loan, the goal of lying in this way cannot be achieved. In such a world,
making a lying promise to repay a loan would not be an effective means of getting money.

Here is Kant’s argument explaining why statement 1 is false:

Start by imagining a world where everyone makes a lying promise to repay a loan in cases
like the one we’re thinking of. If everyone in the world makes a lying promise to repay a loan
in these cases, then everyone would see through the lie. In such a world, if I asked you for a
loan to buy a car that I can’t afford, and I promised that I’d pay you back, you would know
I’m lying. You’d know I’m lying, because in this world everyone, including you, makes lying
promises to repay loans in order to get something they want. Knowing this, people would
not be so foolish as to give loans to those who make lying promises for them, because they
would know that they will never get the money back.

In a world where everyone makes lying promises to repay loans, the act of making such lying
promises would not be an effective means of achieving the goal of getting money. So, Kant
concludes, the act of making lying promises to repay loans is immoral.
Slide 15

The Universalisability Test: Examples

• Let us take another example where Kant

uses the Principle of Universalisability to
demonstrate that it is immoral not to help
other people in need; even if you don’t
know them.

• Imagine that a prosperous man comes

across people who are in great distress,
whom he could easily help.

15

Notes: NA
Slide 16

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Question:

• In this scenario, is it morally permissible

not to help these people?

16

Notes:

Strictly speaking, this question asks whether a non-action (not helping) is morally
permissible. Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be used to evaluate non-actions, too. Moral
philosophers call non-actions “omissions”.
Slide 17

The Universalisability Test: Examples

To answer this question, apply the

Universalisability Test:

• First, imagine a world in which no one

helps others whom he or she can
easily help.

17

Notes: NA
Slide 18

The Universalisability Test: Examples

Second, confirm that in such a world, both

these two statements are true:
• Statement 1: The goal of this action can
be achieved in this world.
• Statement 2: Nothing essential to the
agent’s will would be endangered, given
that everyone in this world does
this action.

In this example, Kant argues that statement

2 is false. Therefore, the action is immoral.

18

Notes:

In this example, Kant argues that statement 2 would be false. In a world in which no one ever helps other
people in need—even people whom he or she can easily help—something essential to one’s will would be
endangered. Here is Kant’s argument for why statement 2 would be false:

By “will,” Kant means a faculty or set of faculties that enables a rational being to choose, think, plan, and act.
Kant also speaks of a person’s “will” as the sum total of her freely and self-reflectively approved choices,
thoughts, plans, and actions. Something “essential” to one’s will is something someone needs in order to have
a will at all. Survival quickly comes to mind as something essential to your will: you cannot have a will if you are
dead. But other things may be essential to your will, such as health, education, and political freedoms. Poor
health can upset and even destroy your plans in life. Education develops thinking skills, and thinking skills are
needed to make good choices (many of which are related to your survival and health). Without political
freedoms, you may very well be forced to live a life under the control of others.

In any person’s life, occasions may arise when one needs the help of others. You may be afflicted by an
accident, disaster, or disease. You may be the victim of a crime, or you may be lost in an unfamiliar place. In
these situations you would surely benefit from the help given (freely) by others. Even your most basic needs
for food, shelter, and protection cannot be met without the assistance of others.

But imagine what it would be like in a world where no one ever helps others whom he or she can easily help.
The severity of world poverty today gives us a hint of what such a world would be like. Millions of people are
dying of preventable malnutrition and disease, because they are not getting the help they need. That’s what
the real world is like. Just imagine how difficult it would be to live in a world where no one ever helps others,
even when they could easily do it! Many things essential to one’s will would be endangered in this world. And
for this reason, Kant concludes that not helping others whom one could easily help is not morally permissible.
Slide 19

Universalisability: Attractions

• The fundamental thought behind Kant’s Principle of

Universalisability is that acting morally requires
being impartial.

• In Kant’s view, to be impartial is to treat similar

cases similarly, and not to treat people differently
for no good reason.

• An example of a failure to be impartial: a student

cheats on her exams, knowing she’ll get away with
it.

• The Principle of Universalisability is meant to be a

test for being impartial in the way one treats others.
19

Notes:

The fundamental thought behind Kant’s Principle of Universalisability is that acting morally requires
being impartial. In Kant’s view, to be impartial is to treat similar cases similarly, and not to treat people
differently for no good reason.

Kant seems to be right about the importance of being impartial to leading an ethical life. It seems that
failures to be impartial are prototypical instances of immorality. Think of cheating on an exam when the
cheater knows she can get away with it. A reason this sort of cheating is wrong is precisely that it involves
a failure of impartiality. Cheaters don’t want (too many) others to cheat on their exams too, since the
whole point of cheating is to gain an advantage over others. Instead, cheaters want to be able to do well
on exams the easy way—by cheating—while they want others to prepare for exams the hard way—by
actually learning the material. In this sense, cheaters are making an exception of themselves: they act as
if they are more important than others, and as if rules that apply to others do not apply to them.

The Principle of Universalisability is meant to be a test for being impartial in the way one treats others.
Actions that pass the universalisability test are actions that everyone could do, without making the
actions pointless and without threatening the wills of the agents themselves. Therefore, if you follow the
Principle of Universalisability, you will be following a rule that can apply to everyone, and you will not be
making a special exception of yourself by taking actions that couldn’t be justified under a rule that
applies to everyone.

The Principle of Universalisability is a plausible moral principle, since it captures the importance of being
impartial and it provides a test to help us figure out when we are impartial in our actions.
Slide 20

The Principle of Humanity

The Principle of Humanity is Kant’s second

formulation of the Categorical Imperative.

The Principle of Humanity:

• An action is morally right if and only if it
treats human beings as ends-in-
themselves, and never as mere means.

20

Notes: NA
Slide 21

The Principle of Humanity

The Principle of Humanity requires us to do

two things:

1. Never use others as mere means.

2. Always treat others as ends in
themselves.

21

Notes: NA
Slide 22

The Principle of Humanity

• To use other people as mere means is to use them

as tools for purposes that are not their purposes.
For example, a lying promise to repay a debt.

• However, the Principle of Humanity permits using

others for purposes that they do share with you.
For example, in voluntary exchanges between
buyers and sellers.

• According to Kant, treating human beings as ends-

in-themselves means treating them with respect,
as beings endowed with intrinsic value
and dignity.

22

Notes:

To use other people as mere means is to use them as tools for purposes that are not their
purposes. For example, a lying promise to repay a debt. When you make a lying promise to
repay a debt, your purpose is to take money from someone without paying it back. If the
other person gives you the money because he or she believes your lie, their purpose is to
give you a loan that you will eventually repay. Their purpose is not to let you take their
money without paying it back.

However, the Principle of Humanity permits using others for purposes that they do share
with you. For example, in voluntary exchanges between buyers and sellers. In voluntary
purchases, the buyer wants to obtain a good or service from a seller in exchange for money,
and the seller wants to give the buyer that good or service in exchange for money. So, in
voluntary purchases, the buyer and seller share more or less the same purpose.

According to Kant, treating human beings as ends-in-themselves means treating them with
respect, as beings endowed with intrinsic value and dignity.

To say that something has intrinsic value means that it has value just because of its
existence, and that its value does not depend on any other good things.

Dignity is the quality of being worthy of respect.

Slide 23

The Principle of Humanity

The term “human beings” in the Principle of

Humanity refers to all rational,
autonomous agents.
• Rational agents have the power to reason,
which they use to govern their own lives.
• Autonomy is the capacity to govern one’s
own life by one’s own free choices.
• According to Kant, all rational, autonomous
beings are intrinsically valuable. Moreover,
they have equal intrinsic value.

23

Notes:

According to Kant, all rational, autonomous agents are intrinsically valuable. Moreover, they
have equal intrinsic value. This fundamental equality is not affected in any way by social and
economic status, racial or ethnic characteristics, the possession of power, etc.
Slide 24

The Principle of Humanity

• What moral claim does the Principle of

Humanity imply?

• Kant and his students have used the

Principle of Humanity to argue that we
have a great many moral obligations.

• For one thing, the Principle of Humanity

supports “negative” moral obligations to
refrain from diminishing people’s
rationality and/or autonomy (including
one’s own).
24

Notes: NA
Slide 25

The Principle of Humanity

• Some of the examples of this principle are

moral obligations such as not to lie, steal,
enslave, rape, murder, etc.

• These actions involve using people for

purposes that they do not share. Thus
they are morally wrong, and we have a
moral obligation to refrain from
doing them.

25

Notes: NA
Slide 26

The Principle of Humanity

• In addition, the Principle of Humanity

supports “positive” moral obligations to
actively promote people’s rationality
and/or autonomy.

• For example: moral obligations to

perform “easy rescues,” such as saving a
toddler from drowning in a pond.

• Death destroys rational, autonomous

beings. So it would be wrong not to
prevent easily avoidable deaths.
26

Notes: NA
Slide 27

The Principle of Humanity

• Onora O’Neill, a contemporary Kantian,

uses the Principle of Humanity to argue
that there is a moral obligation to help
reduce “hunger, great poverty, and
powerlessness” (O’Neill 1980).

• These conditions undermine people’s

autonomy, because people in these
conditions cannot form and pursue a
freely chosen plan of life as effectively
as others.

27

Notes: NA
Slide 28

Principle of Humanity: Attractions

• The Principle of Humanity offers a

plausible explanation of what it is about
people that is valuable and demands
respect—namely, rationality and
autonomy.

• It implies that all people have moral

rights—“human” rights—based on their
rationality and autonomy.

• It also explains why people are morally

responsible for their actions.
28

Notes:

It seems that there is something about persons that is valuable and demands respect. The
Principle of Humanity offers a plausible explanation of what this “something” is: persons are
intrinsically valuable due to being rational and autonomous.

The Principle of Humanity implies that all people have moral rights based on their rationality
and autonomy. This is consistent with some powerful intuitions.

The Principle of Humanity explains why people are morally responsible for what they do.
Because we are autonomous agents, we can make free choices and are thus responsible for
those choices.
Slide 29

Summary
Here are the key takeaways from this lesson:

• Deontological ethics is a family of moral theories in

normative ethics.
• Deontological ethics denies consequentialism.
According to consequentialism, the moral status of an
action, policy, motive, or rule depends only on
whether it produces the best consequences.
• The two formulas of Kant’s Categorical Imperative are
Principle of Universalisability and
Principle of Humanity.
• The attractions of Kant’s deontology explains the
importance of impartiality to morality (and rationality);
explains why persons are intrinsically valuable; gives a
foundation for the idea that people have moral rights;
explains why people are morally responsible.
29

Notes: NA
Slide 30

Deigh, John (2010). An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Driver, Julia (2006). Ethics: The Fundamentals. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Korsgaard, Christine (1996). “Kant’s Formula of Universal Law,” in Creating the Kingdom of Ends.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Neill, Onora (1993). Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy, 3rd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rachels, James and Stuart Rachels (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill.

Shafer-Landau, Russ (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30

Notes: NA
Slide 31

Thank You
Andres Luco
+65 65927827
acluco@ntu.edu.sg
HSS 03 88 (PHILO)

Notes: NA