o l o g y

on t
De , ethical th
sophy
e o r ies

philo
Definition

• The formal term in moral philosophy to describe duty

based ethics, from the Greek root, deon, meaning duty,
and ology, meaning the study of. Duty based ethics: The
principle that actions should be based on moral rules
describing right behavior, without regard to the
consequences of adherence to the rules
• defined as an 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. An example of deontology is
the belief that killing someone is wrong, even if it was in
self-defense.
• The deontological approach to ethics regards morality
as a duty, or a moral rule that ought to be followed.

• Deontological ethics is about following universal

norms that prescribe what people ought to do, how
they should behave, and what is right or wrong. It is a
morality of principles, not of consequences.

• More-over, deontology resides in reason, not in

utility-providing feelings. Reason is considered to
be the source of moral rules, expressed through
the human will.
• In deontological ethics, the moral problem is
considered to be a rational problem that involves
finding the right moral rule. It was Immanuel Kant
who formulated the best-known principle for rule-
setting in his Categorical Imperative: ‘Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law’ (Kant,
1998, p. 422).
•
• This maxim may be based on rights, a belief in
fairness, an intrinsic valuation, or something else, as
long as there are universalisable moral duties.
• For example the right of female employees to equal wages for equal
work implies that employers have a duty not to discriminate on the
basis of gender; a belief that people deserve some minimum living
standard may lead to the formulation and enforcement of a
minimum wage; and respect for the intrinsic value of the ecosystem
may lead to a moral duty of recycling.
• An important implication of deontological ethics, emphasised
by Kant himself, is that human beings are considered to be
equal and therefore should never be turned into means for
other people’s ends; people should always be regarded as
ends in themselves. This implies mutual respect and the
protection of human dignity, which in turn assumes moral
limits to human behaviour or a bottom-line of what is
acceptable, irrespective of the economic consequences of
such moral norms.
Deontology in Economic Theory

• Opposition At first sight, deontology and economics do

not seem to be compatible. Where as economics is
concerned with behaviour characterised by choices and
ends, deontology is concerned with behaviour
characterised by duties and limitations.

• While economics is about markets and allocation

problems, deontology implies a rule-setting authority and
distribution problems. It appears that economic behaviour
and moral rules are in opposition, and that little room
exists for deontology in economics.
• But this may be too hasty an observation. As is widely
acknowledged among economists, an economy can function only
when certain normative requirements are fulfilled. Partly, these
requirements can be understood as rights, such as property rights
and contractual rights. Another requirement concerns norms.
These can be formal or informal norms – expressed informal
institutions, such as the welfare state, or informal institutions, such
as culturally-shaped styles of human resource management in
firms
• Deontologists hold that bound underlying principles square
measure right or wrong no matter the circumstances.
• For that reason, deontology is taken into account a “rule-based”
approach to ethics.
• To be an ethical person, one should not solely bring
forth smart results however use the right suggests that
and act with smart intentions.
• The most effective glorious deontologist is eighteenth
century German thinker, Immanuel Kant, argued that
folks will develop ethical principles through reasoning
alone.
• Following his logic, one may reason that behaviors
like telling a lie square measure wrong no matter the
result, even though the lie was told so as to shield
someone’s safely.
• Thus, it’s durable to develop inerrant, universal laws or
categorical imperatives concerning lying and different behavior.
For example the student who refuses to cheat on exam is morally
worthy if her or his decision springs from universal duty, but
morally unworthy if the decision is merely born of self interest,
such as fear of being caught.
• However how does the individual of goodwill comprehend what
is right to react Kant propound the downright basic, the idea that
each individual ought to follow up on just those standards that she
or he , as an issue individual would recommend as all inclusive
laws to be connected to the entire of humankind. This
methodology is called as universalism
• Universalism offers guidance with regard to the rules by which
someone should make decisions. Kant recognized universal rights
such as freedom of speech, freedom of consent, the right to
privacy. Issues arise when an individual does not know which
rules to follow.
• Deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special
emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human
actions. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,”
and logos, “science.”

• In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because

of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of
the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts
are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human
welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for
duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done
though the heavens fall.”

• By contrast, teleological ethics (also called consequentialist ethics or

consequentialism) holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely
the value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories
have been termed formalistic, because their central principle lies in the
conformity of an action to some rule or law.
• The first great philosopher to define
deontological principles was Immanuel Kant,
the 18th-century German founder of critical
philosophy. Kant held that nothing is good
without qualification except a good will, and a
good will is one that wills to act in accord
with the moral law and out of respect for that
law rather than out of natural inclinations. He
saw the moral law as a categorical imperative
—i.e., an unconditional command—and
believed that its content could be established
by human reason alone.
• Thus, the supreme categorical imperative is: “Act
only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal
law.” Kant considered that formulation of the
categorical imperative to be equivalent to: “So
act that you treat humanity in your own person
and in the person of everyone else always at the
same time as an end and never merely as means.”
The connection between those two formulations,
however, has never been entirely clear. In any
event, Kant’s critics questioned his view that all
duties can be derived from a purely formal
principle and argued that, in his preoccupation
with rational consistency, he neglected the
concrete content of moral obligation.
 
• That objection was faced in the 20th century by the
British philosopher Sir David Ross, who held that
numerous “prima facie duties,” rather than a single
formal principle for deriving them, are themselves
immediately self-evident. Ross distinguished those
prima facie duties (such as promise keeping,
reparation, gratitude, and justice) from actual duties,
for “any possible act has many sides to it which are
relevant to its rightness or wrongness”; and those
facets have to be weighed before “forming a
judgment on the totality of its nature” as an actual
obligation in the given circumstances
• Ross’s attempt to argue that intuition is a source
of moral knowledge was, however, heavily
criticized, and by the end of the 20th century,
Kantian ways of thinking—especially the
prohibition on using a person as a means rather
than an end—were again providing the basis for
the deontological views that were most widely
discussed among philosophers. At a popular
level, the international emphasis on protecting
human rights—and thus on the duty not to violate
them—can also be seen as a triumph for
deontological ethics.