Jump to content

Deontology: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
YurikBot (talk | contribs)
278,165 edits
m Changing locally defined but nonexistent Commons category (Category:Deontology) to the one from Wikidata (Category:Deontological ethics)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Class of ethical theories}}
{{cleanup-date|December 2005}}
{{Redirect|Deontic|the linguistic term|Linguistic modality}}
{{Distinguish|text=the opposite of [[ontology]]}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}


{{Ethical frameworks sidebar}}
'''Deontological ethics''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''Deon'' meaning ''obligation'') or '''Deontology''' is an [[ethical]] theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others. Deontology posits the existence of [[a priori]] [[moral]] obligations, further suggesting that people ought to live by a set of permanently defined principles that do not change merely as a result of a change in circumstances. One of the most important implications of deontology is that praiseworthy goals can never justify the immoral actions; ends do not justify the means. Deontology is directly in opposition to [[consequentialism]], an ethical theory in which the ends can justify the means because decisions are judged primarily in terms of their consequences.


In [[moral philosophy]], '''deontological ethics''' or '''deontology''' (from [[Greek language|Greek]]: {{Langx|grc|δέον|lit=obligation, duty|label=none}} + {{Langx|grc|λόγος|lit=study|label=none}}) is the [[normative ethics|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 and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology | title=Deontology dictionary definition &#124; deontology defined}}</ref> It is sometimes described as [[duty]]-, [[obligation]]-, or rule-based ethics.<ref name="Waller, Bruce N 2005">{{cite book|first=Bruce N.|last=Waller|authorlink=Bruce Waller|date=2005|title=Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues|publisher=[[Pearson Longman]]|location=London, England|isbn=978-0205017737|page=23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Deontology|url=https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology|website=Ethics Unwrapped|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref> Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to [[consequentialism]],<ref>{{cite book|first=Antony|last=Flew|authorlink=Antony Flew|date=1979|chapter=Consequentialism|page=73|title=A Dictionary of Philosophy|edition=2nd|publisher=[[St. Martin's Press]]|location=New York City|isbn=978-0312209230}}</ref> [[utilitarianism]],<ref name="mw-trolley">{{cite web|title=Next Stop: 'Trolley Problem'|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics |website=Merriam-Webster|access-date=25 July 2023}}</ref> [[virtue ethics]],<ref>{{cite book |editor-first1=David |editor-last1=Carr |editor-first2=Jan |editor-last2=Steutel |year=1999 |title=Virtue Ethics and Moral Education |publisher=Routledge |page=22 |isbn=9780415170734}}</ref> and [[pragmatic ethics]].<ref>{{cite book |last=LaFollette |first=Hugh |date=2000 |editor-last=LaFollette |editor-first=Hugh |chapter=Pragmatic ethics |title=The Blackwell guide to ethical theory |series=Blackwell philosophy guides |location=Oxford, UK; Malden, MA |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |pages=400–419 |isbn=9780631201182 |oclc=41645965 |chapter-url=http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/pragmati.htm}}</ref> In this [[terminology]], action is more important than the consequences.
==Proponents of deontological ethics==


The term ''deontological'' was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by [[C. D. Broad]] in his 1930 book, ''Five Types of Ethical Theory''.<ref>{{cite book|first=Tom L.|last=Beauchamp|authorlink=Tom Beauchamp|date=1991|title=Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy|publisher=[[McGraw Hill]]|location=New York City|isbn=978-0070042568|page=171}}</ref> Older usage of the term goes back to [[Jeremy Bentham]], who coined it prior to 1816 as a [[synonym]] of ''dicastic'' or ''censorial ethics'' (i.e., ethics based on judgement).<ref>[[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham, Jeremy]]. 1816. ''Chrestomathia''. London. [[iarchive:chrestomathiabe00bentgoog/page/n285|p. 213–14]]:
[[Image:KANT.jpg|thumb|Immanuel Kant|200px|right]]
The most famous deontological theory was advanced by the German philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]]. This theory held that particular kinds of acts are morally wrong because they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and thus should not be carried out under any circumstances whatsoever. Conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings should always be carried out, under any circumstances whatsoever. A course of action that should always be carried out is called a [[categorical imperative]]. Kant developed three formulations of the categorical imperative:


"For a synonym, ''Dicastic Ethics'' may have the single-worded [[Appelative|appellative]] ''Deontology''.'''*'''"
*''Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time 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.''
*''Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.''


'''Corresponding footnote''': "'''*'''[''Deontology''.] From two Greek words, the first of which signifies ''fit, fitting, right, becoming, proper''. Deontology—an account or indication of that which, on the occasion in question, whatsoever it be, is—(i.e. by him who speaks or writes, is regarded as being)—''fit, fitting, becoming, proper''. It is in ''sound'' only, and not in ''signification'', that it has any connexion with the word [''[[ontology]]''],<!--misprinted as outology --> employed above. Applied to every branch of Ethics, taken in the largest sense of the word ''Ethics'', the use of such a word as ''Deontology'' affords a promise of being attended with considerable convenience. It will accord equally well with every system which ever has been, or ever can be, devised, in relation to the foundation of moral obligation :—in the use of it, no such incongruity and presumption is involved, as that which is called ''[[petitio principii]]''—i.e. a begging of the question—an assumption of the matter in dispute."</ref><ref>[[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham, Jeremy]]. 1834. ''Deontology or, The Science of Morality'', edited by [[John Bowring|J. Bowring]]. London: [[Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans|Longman, Rees, Orme, Browne, Green, and Longman]]. p. [https://archive.org/stream/deontologyorthes01bentuoft#page/21/mode/2up 21]: "Deontology is derived from the Greek words, {{Langx|grc|το δεον|label=none}} (that which is proper) and {{Langx|grc|Λογια|label=none}}, knowledge – meaning the knowledge of what is right and proper; and it is here specially applied to the subject of morals, or that part of the field of action which is not the object of public legislation. As an art, it is the doing what is fit to be done; as a science, the knowing what is fit to be done on every occasion."</ref> The more general sense of the word is retained in [[French language|French]], especially in the term ''code de déontologie'' ([[ethical code]]), in the context of [[professional ethics]].
Other examples of deontological theorists include the [[England|English]] philosopher [[John Locke]] and the modern-day philosopher [[John Rawls]]. Locke held that individual persons have rights that are part of the natural law of the world, and that actions (including the death penalty he advocated) can be judged as right or wrong based on whether they respect these rights. [[John Rawls]] clarified the meaning of deontology by explaining the distinction between the ''right'' and the ''good''. Whereas consequentialist theories argue or assume that an act is ''right'' (and should therefore be carried out) if it maximizes the good, deontological theories assert that an act can maximize the good yet still be wrong (and therefore should not be carried out) if it violates some deontological principle such as a right or a duty or the categorical imperative.


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 [[Value (personal and cultural)|values]] (any of which may be in conflict with personal desires).
==Criticism of deontology==


==Deontological philosophies==
[[Image:Bentham.jpg|thumb|Jeremy Bentham|150px|left]]
There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.
Many [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]] philosophers offer interesting critiques of deontology. [[Jeremy Bentham]], an early utilitarian philosopher, criticized deontology on the grounds that it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion. [[John Stuart Mill]], who lived in [[19th century]] [[Britain]], argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance.


===Kantianism===
[[Shelly Kagan]], a current professor of philosophy at Yale University, notes in support of Mill and Bentham that under deontology, individuals are bound by ''constraints'' (such as the requirement not to kill), but are also given ''options'' (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). His line of attack is to first show that constraints are immoral, then show that options are immoral without constraints. If this reasoning is sound, then it follows that deontology is immoral.
[[File:Immanuel Kant portrait c1790.jpg|thumb|[[Immanuel Kant]]|right]]
{{Main|Kantian ethics}}
[[Immanuel Kant]]'s theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.<ref>[[Brian Orend|Orend, Brian]]. 2000. ''War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective''. West Waterloo, ON: [[Wilfrid Laurier University Press]]. p. 19.</ref><ref>Kelly, Eugene. 2006. ''The Basics of Western Philosophy''. Greenwood Press. p. 160.</ref> First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act from [[duty]] (''Pflicht'').<ref>
[[Thomas Kingsmill Abbott|Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill]], trans. 1889. ''The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics''. [Preface and Introduction to [http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Kant,+Immanuel/Die+Metaphysik+der+Sitten/Zweiter+Teil.+Metaphysische+Anfangsgr%C3%BCnde+der+Tugendlehre ''Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre''], 1797]. Abbott's ''deontology'' translates Kant's {{lang|de|Pflichtenlehre}}.</ref> 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 [[Summum bonum|highest good]] must be both good in itself and good without qualification.<ref name="transition">[[Immanuel Kant|Kant, Immanuel]]. 1785. "Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical." § 1 in ''[[Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals]]''.</ref> Something is "'''good in itself'''" when it is [[intrinsic value (ethics)|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]], [[wikt:perseverance|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:
Another, unrelated critique of deontological ethics comes from [[Aretaic turn|Aretaic]] theories, which often maintain that neither consequences nor duties but "character" should be the focal point of ethical theory. The ancient Greek philosopher [[Aristotle]], for example, sought to describe what characteristics a virtuous person would have, and then argued that people should act in accordance with these characteristics.
{{Quote|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''.<ref name="transition"/>}}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 they "act out of respect for the moral law."<ref name="transition" /> 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]]."<ref>[[Kant, Immanuel]]. 1785. ''[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5682/5682-h/5682-h.htm Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals]'' (10th ed.), translated by [[Thomas Kingsmill Abbott|T. K. Abbott]]. ''[[Project Gutenberg]]''. p. 23.</ref>


Kant's three significant formulations of the [[categorical imperative]] (a way of evaluating motivations for action) are:
[[Category:Ethics]]
* Act only according to that [[Maxim (philosophy)|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;
* Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal [[Kingdom of Ends|kingdom of ends]].


Kant argued that the only [[moral absolutism|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.
[[de:Deontologische Ethik]]

[[it:Deontologia]]
In his essay, "[[On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns]]", arguing against the position of [[Benjamin Constant]], ''Des réactions politiques'', Kant states that:<ref>"Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", ''Berlinische Blätter'' 1 (1797), 301–314; edited in: ''Werke in zwölf Bänden'', vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), [http://www.zeno.org/nid/20009192123 zeno.org/nid/20009192123].</ref><blockquote>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 (''mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius''). 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 [{{Langx|de|[[sources of law|Rechtsquelle]]|label=none}}].… 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.</blockquote>
[[ru:Деонтология]]

[[fi:Deontologia]]
===Divine command theory===
{{Main|Divine command theory}}
Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the ''divine command theory'', which is actually a cluster of related theories that essentially state that an action is right if [[God]] has decreed that it is right.<ref>Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." ''[[Noûs]]'' 17(3):387–407.</ref> According to English philosopher [[Ralph Cudworth]], [[William of Ockham]], [[René Descartes]], and 18th-century [[Calvinists]] all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.<ref>[[Ralph Cudworth|Cudworth, Ralph]]. [1731] 1996. ''A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality'', edited by S. Hutton. Cambridge: [[Cambridge University Press]].</ref>

The ''divine command theory'' is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on [[Biblical Sabbath|Sabbath]], then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath ''because God has commanded that they do not do so''. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not, truly speaking, "right" even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to [[Coveting|covet]] a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be [[Immorality|immoral]] to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

One thing that clearly distinguishes [[Kantian ethics|Kantian deontologism]] from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

===Ross's deontological pluralism===
[[W. D. Ross]] objects to Kant's monistic deontology, which bases ethics in only one foundational principle, the [[categorical imperative]]. He contends that there is a plurality (7, although this number is seen to vary to interpretation) of [[Prima facie#Use in academic philosophy|prima facie duties]] determining what is right.<ref name="Skelton">{{cite web |last1=Skelton |first1=Anthony |title=William David Ross |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/william-david-ross/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=12 January 2021 |date=2012}}</ref><ref name="Ross">{{cite book |last1=Ross |first1=W. D. |title=The Right and the Good |date=2002 |orig-date=1930 |publisher=Clarendon Press |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/STRTRA-4}}</ref>{{rp|xii}}

These duties are identified by W. D. Ross:

# ''the duty of fidelity'' (to keep promises and to tell the truth)
# ''the duty of reparation'' (to make amends for wrongful acts)
# ''the duty of gratitude'' (to return kindnesses received)
# ''the duty of non-injury'' (not to hurt others)
# ''the duty of beneficence'' (to promote the maximum of aggregate good)
# ''the duty of self-improvement'' (to improve one's own condition)
# ''the duty of justice'' (to distribute benefits and burdens equably).<ref name="Ross" />{{rp|21–5}}<ref name="Simpson">{{cite web |last1=Simpson |first1=David L. |title=William David Ross |url=https://iep.utm.edu/ross-wd/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=12 January 2021}}</ref>

One problem the deontological pluralist has to face is that cases can arise where the demands of one duty violate another duty, so-called [[moral dilemmas]].<ref name="Borchert">{{cite book |last1=Borchert |first1=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BORMEO |chapter=Ross, William David}}</ref> For example, there are cases where it is necessary to break a promise in order to relieve someone's distress.<ref name="Ross" />{{rp|28}} Ross makes use of the distinction between ''prima facie duties'' and ''absolute duty'' to solve this problem.<ref name="Ross" />{{rp|28}} The duties listed above are ''prima facie duties'' (moral actions that are required unless a greater obligation trumps them); they are general principles whose validity is self-evident to morally mature persons.They are factors that do not take all considerations into account. ''Absolute duty'', on the other hand, is particular to one specific situation, taking everything into account, and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.<ref name="Skelton" /><ref name="Burgh">{{cite journal |last1=Burgh |first1=W. G. de |title=The Right and the Good. By W. D. Ross M.A., LL.D., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 1930. Pp. Vi + 176. Price 10s. 6d.) |journal=Philosophy |date=1931 |volume=6 |issue=22 |pages=236–40 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100045265 |s2cid=170734138 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WGDTRA}}</ref> It is ''absolute duty'' that determines which acts are right or wrong.<ref name="Skelton" />

===Contemporary deontology===
[[Contemporary philosophy|Contemporary]] deontologists (i.e., scholars born in the first half of the 20th century) include [[Józef Maria Bocheński]], [[Thomas Nagel]], [[T. M. Scanlon]], and [[Roger Scruton]].

Bocheński (1965) makes a distinction between [[Deontic logic|''deontic'']] and [[epistemology|''epistemic'']] authority:<ref>[[Józef Maria Bocheński|Bocheński, Józef]]. 1965. "Analysis of authority." Pp. 162–73 in ''The Logic of Religion.'' New York: [[New York University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0814700501}}.</ref>

* A typical example of '''epistemic authority''' in Bocheński's usage would be "the relation of a teacher to her 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.<ref name="annabrozek115" />
* An example of '''deontic authority''' would be "the relation between an employer and her 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.<ref name="annabrozek115">[[Anna Brożek|Brożek, Anna]]. 2013. "[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11212-013-9175-9.pdf Bocheński on authority]." ''Studies in East European Thought'' 65(1):115–33. {{doi|10.1007/s11212-013-9175-9}}.</ref>

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.<ref name="Scruton" /> 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.<ref name="Scruton">{{cite book |last=Scruton |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Scruton |title=On Human Nature |publisher=Princeton |edition=1st |date=2017 |pages=79–112 |isbn=978-0-691-18303-9}}</ref>

===Deontology and consequentialism===
{{Further|Trolley problem|Consequentialism|Utilitarianism|Effective altruism}}

==== 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]].<ref>[[Frances Kamm|Kamm, Frances M.]] 1996. ''Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status''. New York: [[Oxford University Press]].</ref> 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 [[intuition]]s. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to [[Organ harvesting|harvest his organs]] in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a [[trolley problem|runaway trolley]] that would otherwise kill five [[innocent]], immobile people, onto a [[Sidetrack (rail transport)|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".<ref>[[Frances Kamm|Kamm, Frances M.]] 2007. "Toward the Essence of Nonconsequentialist Constraints on Harming." Ch. 5 in ''Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-19-518969-8}}.</ref> 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.<ref>Waugh, Laurence Francis Hogan. 2015. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20190220103232/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/225c/5f76260aa952b697f88f649ef203ffcdb6f9.pdf Harming the innocent to save lives A critique of the Doctrine of Productive Purity]" (Masters Research thesis). ''School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses''. [[University of Melbourne]]. {{Hdl|11343/52416|hdl-access=free}}.</ref>

==== Reconciling deontology with consequentialism ====
Various attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with [[consequentialism]]. Threshold deontology holds that rules ought to govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross a stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over.<ref name="Alexander">{{Cite journal |last1=Alexander |first1=Larry |last2=Moore |first2=Michael |date=2007-11-21 |title=Deontological Ethics
|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/ethics-deontological/ |journal=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |volume=Winter 2020 Edition |access-date=2023-09-30}}</ref> Theories put forth by [[Thomas Nagel]] and [[Michael S. Moore (academic)|Michael S. Moore]] attempt to reconcile deontology with consequentialism by assigning each a jurisdiction.<ref name="Alexander" /> [[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 [[Virtue ethics|virtues]] and consequences. King develops a [[hierarchy]] of principles to link his [[meta-ethics]], which is more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he presents in his book.<ref name="King2008">{{cite book|last=King|first=Iain|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S6TAjY609aAC&pg=PA220|title=How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time|date=2008|publisher=Continuum|isbn=978-1-84706-347-2|page=245}} Page 220 of this book lists 14 deontological principles, which King describes as "The first fourteen principles of right and wrong."</ref>

===Secular deontology===

[[Ethical intuitionism|Intuition-based]] deontology is a concept within [[secular ethics]]. A classical example of literature on secular ethics is the [[Tirukkural|Kural text]], authored by the ancient [[Tamils|Tamil]] [[Indian philosophy|Indian philosopher]] [[Thiruvalluvar|Valluvar]]. It can be argued that some concepts from deontological ethics date back to this text. Concerning ethical intuitionism, 20th century philosopher [[C.D. Broad]] coined the term "deontological ethics" to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "[[ethical intuitionism]]" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.<ref>Louden, Robert B (1996). "Toward a Genealogy of 'Deontology'". Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:4. Johns Hopkins University Press., p. 587</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->
<!-- please add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]], via {{subst:AnnotatedListOfLinks}} or {{Annotated link}} -->
{{div col|colwidth=20em|small=yes}}
* {{Annotated link |Convention (norm)}}
* {{Annotated link |Categorical imperative}}
* {{Annotated link |Deontic logic}}
* {{Annotated link |Deontological libertarianism}}
* {{Annotated link |Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development}}
* {{Annotated link |Meta-ethics}}
* {{Annotated link |Moral responsibility}}
* {{Annotated link |Norm (philosophy)}}
* {{Annotated link |Plank of Carneades}}
* {{Annotated link |Rule according to higher law}}
* ''{{Annotated link |The Right and the Good}}''
* {{Annotated link |Divine command theory}}
* {{Annotated link |Euthyphro dilemma}}
{{div col end}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->

==References==
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
* [[Tom Beauchamp|Beauchamp, Tom L.]] 1991. ''Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy'' (2nd ed.) New York: [[McGraw Hill]].
* [[C. D. Broad|Broad, C. D.]] 1930. ''Five Types of Ethical Theory''. New York: [[Harcourt, Brace and Co]].
* [[Antony Flew|Flew, Antony]]. 1979. "Consequentialism." In ''A Dictionary of Philosophy'' (2nd ed.). New York: [[St. Martin's Press|St. Martin's]].
* [[Frances Kamm|Kamm, Frances M.]] 1996. ''Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status''. New York: [[Oxford University Press]].
* —— 2007. ''Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-19-518969-8}}, {{ISBNT|978-0-19-534590-2}}.
*{{cite book| last = Kant| first = Immanuel| author-link = Immanuel Kant| title = Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals| year = 1964| publisher = Harper and Row Publishers, Inc| isbn = 978-0-06-131159-8| url-access = registration| url = https://archive.org/details/groundworkofmeta00kant}}
* «Législation, éthique et déontologie», Bruxelles: Editions de Boeck Université, 2011, Karine BREHAUX, {{ISBN|978-2-84371-558-7}}
* Olson, Robert G. 1967. "Deontological Ethics." In ''The Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', edited by [[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|P. Edwards]]. London: [[Collier Macmillan]].
*[[W. D. Ross|Ross, W. D.]] 1930. ''The Right and the Good''. Oxford: [[Clarendon Press]].
* Salzman, Todd A. 1995. ''Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology''. [[University press|University Press]].
* [[Bruce Waller|Waller, Bruce N.]] 2005. ''Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues''. New York: [[Pearson Longman]].
* Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." ''[[Noûs]]'' 17(3):387–407.

==External links==
{{Commons category|Deontological ethics}}
{{Wiktionary}}

*[http://www.philosopher.eu/texts/kants-ethics-summary/ Kantian Ethics – Summary] A concise summary of the key details of Kant's deontology
*[http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/tp4/top08.html Freedom and the Boundary of Morals], Lecture 22 from Stephen Palmquist's book, [http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/tp4/ The Tree of Philosophy] (fourth edition, 2000).
*[http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/DeontologyAndEthicalEnds.asp Deontology and Ethical Ends]
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/special-obligations/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Special Obligations]
*[https://eportfolios.federation.edu.au/view/blocks.php?id=123052 Log in to ePortfolios@FedUni – ePortfolios@FedUni] Deontology framework ethics

{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Ethics}}
{{Jurisprudence}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Deontological Ethics}}
[[Category:Deontology| ]]
[[Category:Ethical theories]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Normative ethics]]

Latest revision as of 08:34, 22 November 2024

"Deontic" redirects here. For the linguistic term, see Linguistic modality.
Not to be confused with the opposite of ontology.

Part of a series on
Ethics
Schools
Concepts
Domains
Ethicists
Works
Related
This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation.

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') 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 and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action.[1] It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics.[2][3] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[4] utilitarianism,[5] virtue ethics,[6] and pragmatic ethics.[7] In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[8] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement).[9][10] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie (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).

Deontological philosophies

[edit]

There are numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

Kantianism

[edit]
Immanuel Kant
Main article: Kantian ethics

Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[11][12] First, Kant argues that in order to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (Pflicht).[13] 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.[14] 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.[14]

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 they "act out of respect for the moral law."[14] 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."[15]

Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative (a way of evaluating motivations for action) 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;
  • 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.

In his essay, "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns", arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that:[16]

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 (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). 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 [Rechtsquelle].… 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.

Divine command theory

[edit]
Main article: Divine command theory

Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the divine command theory, which is actually a cluster of related theories that essentially state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.[17] According to English philosopher Ralph Cudworth, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and 18th-century Calvinists all accepted various versions of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.[18]

The divine command theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not, truly speaking, "right" even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.

One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

Ross's deontological pluralism

[edit]

W. D. Ross objects to Kant's monistic deontology, which bases ethics in only one foundational principle, the categorical imperative. He contends that there is a plurality (7, although this number is seen to vary to interpretation) of prima facie duties determining what is right.[19][20]: xii 

These duties are identified by W. D. Ross:

  1. the duty of fidelity (to keep promises and to tell the truth)
  2. the duty of reparation (to make amends for wrongful acts)
  3. the duty of gratitude (to return kindnesses received)
  4. the duty of non-injury (not to hurt others)
  5. the duty of beneficence (to promote the maximum of aggregate good)
  6. the duty of self-improvement (to improve one's own condition)
  7. the duty of justice (to distribute benefits and burdens equably).[20]: 21–5 [21]

One problem the deontological pluralist has to face is that cases can arise where the demands of one duty violate another duty, so-called moral dilemmas.[22] For example, there are cases where it is necessary to break a promise in order to relieve someone's distress.[20]: 28  Ross makes use of the distinction between prima facie duties and absolute duty to solve this problem.[20]: 28  The duties listed above are prima facie duties (moral actions that are required unless a greater obligation trumps them); they are general principles whose validity is self-evident to morally mature persons.They are factors that do not take all considerations into account. Absolute duty, on the other hand, is particular to one specific situation, taking everything into account, and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.[19][23] It is absolute duty that determines which acts are right or wrong.[19]

Contemporary deontology

[edit]

Contemporary deontologists (i.e., scholars born in the first half of the 20th century) include Józef Maria Bocheński, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Roger Scruton.

Bocheński (1965) makes a distinction between deontic and epistemic authority:[24]

  • A typical example of epistemic authority in Bocheński's usage would be "the relation of a teacher to her 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.[25]
  • An example of deontic authority would be "the relation between an employer and her 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.[25]

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.[26] 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.[26]

Deontology and consequentialism

[edit]
Further information: Trolley problem, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, and Effective altruism

Principle of permissible harm

[edit]

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.[27] 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".[28] 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.[29]

Reconciling deontology with consequentialism

[edit]

Various attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with consequentialism. Threshold deontology holds that rules ought to govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross a stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over.[30] Theories put forth by Thomas Nagel and Michael S. Moore attempt to reconcile deontology with consequentialism by assigning each a jurisdiction.[30] 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 is more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he presents in his book.[31]

Secular deontology

[edit]

Intuition-based deontology is a concept within secular ethics. A classical example of literature on secular ethics is the Kural text, authored by the ancient Tamil Indian philosopher Valluvar. It can be argued that some concepts from deontological ethics date back to this text. Concerning ethical intuitionism, 20th century philosopher C.D. Broad coined the term "deontological ethics" to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.[32]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Deontology dictionary definition | deontology defined".
  2. ^ Waller, Bruce N. (2005). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. London, England: Pearson Longman. p. 23. ISBN 978-0205017737.
  3. ^ "Deontology". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 27 May 2020.
  4. ^ Flew, Antony (1979). "Consequentialism". A Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York City: St. Martin's Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0312209230.
  5. ^ "Next Stop: 'Trolley Problem'". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 25 July 2023.
  6. ^ Carr, David; Steutel, Jan, eds. (1999). Virtue Ethics and Moral Education. Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 9780415170734.
  7. ^ LaFollette, Hugh (2000). "Pragmatic ethics". In LaFollette, Hugh (ed.). The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Blackwell philosophy guides. Oxford, UK; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 400–419. ISBN 9780631201182. OCLC 41645965.
  8. ^ Beauchamp, Tom L. (1991). Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York City: McGraw Hill. p. 171. ISBN 978-0070042568.
  9. ^ Bentham, Jeremy. 1816. Chrestomathia. London. p. 213–14: "For a synonym, Dicastic Ethics may have the single-worded appellative Deontology.*" Corresponding footnote: "*[Deontology.] From two Greek words, the first of which signifies fit, fitting, right, becoming, proper. Deontology—an account or indication of that which, on the occasion in question, whatsoever it be, is—(i.e. by him who speaks or writes, is regarded as being)—fit, fitting, becoming, proper. It is in sound only, and not in signification, that it has any connexion with the word [ontology], employed above. Applied to every branch of Ethics, taken in the largest sense of the word Ethics, the use of such a word as Deontology affords a promise of being attended with considerable convenience. It will accord equally well with every system which ever has been, or ever can be, devised, in relation to the foundation of moral obligation :—in the use of it, no such incongruity and presumption is involved, as that which is called petitio principii—i.e. a begging of the question—an assumption of the matter in dispute."
  10. ^ Bentham, Jeremy. 1834. Deontology or, The Science of Morality, edited by J. Bowring. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Browne, Green, and Longman. p. 21: "Deontology is derived from the Greek words, το δεον (that which is proper) and Λογια, knowledge – meaning the knowledge of what is right and proper; and it is here specially applied to the subject of morals, or that part of the field of action which is not the object of public legislation. As an art, it is the doing what is fit to be done; as a science, the knowing what is fit to be done on every occasion."
  11. ^ Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. 19.
  12. ^ Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press. p. 160.
  13. ^ Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill, trans. 1889. The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. [Preface and Introduction to Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre, 1797]. Abbott's deontology translates Kant's Pflichtenlehre.
  14. ^ a b c Kant, Immanuel. 1785. "Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical." § 1 in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
  15. ^ Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10th ed.), translated by T. K. Abbott. Project Gutenberg. p. 23.
  16. ^ "Über ein vermeintes Recht aus Menschenliebe zu lügen", Berlinische Blätter 1 (1797), 301–314; edited in: Werke in zwölf Bänden, vol. 8, Frankfurt am Main (1977), zeno.org/nid/20009192123.
  17. ^ Wierenga, Edward. 1983. "A Defensible Divine Command Theory." Noûs 17(3):387–407.
  18. ^ Cudworth, Ralph. [1731] 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, edited by S. Hutton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. ^ a b c Skelton, Anthony (2012). "William David Ross". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  20. ^ a b c d Ross, W. D. (2002) [1930]. The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
  21. ^ Simpson, David L. "William David Ross". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  22. ^ Borchert, Donald (2006). "Ross, William David". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan.
  23. ^ Burgh, W. G. de (1931). "The Right and the Good. By W. D. Ross M.A., LL.D., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 1930. Pp. Vi + 176. Price 10s. 6d.)". Philosophy. 6 (22): 236–40. doi:10.1017/S0031819100045265. S2CID 170734138.
  24. ^ Bocheński, Józef. 1965. "Analysis of authority." Pp. 162–73 in The Logic of Religion. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0814700501.
  25. ^ a b Brożek, Anna. 2013. "Bocheński on authority." Studies in East European Thought 65(1):115–33. doi:10.1007/s11212-013-9175-9.
  26. ^ a b Scruton, Roger (2017). On Human Nature (1st ed.). Princeton. pp. 79–112. ISBN 978-0-691-18303-9.
  27. ^ Kamm, Frances M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
  28. ^ Kamm, Frances M. 2007. "Toward the Essence of Nonconsequentialist Constraints on Harming." Ch. 5 in Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518969-8.
  29. ^ Waugh, Laurence Francis Hogan. 2015. "Harming the innocent to save lives A critique of the Doctrine of Productive Purity" (Masters Research thesis). School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses. University of Melbourne. hdl:11343/52416.
  30. ^ a b Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael (21 November 2007). "Deontological Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2020 Edition. Retrieved 30 September 2023.
  31. ^ King, Iain (2008). How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time. Continuum. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-84706-347-2. Page 220 of this book lists 14 deontological principles, which King describes as "The first fourteen principles of right and wrong."
  32. ^ Louden, Robert B (1996). "Toward a Genealogy of 'Deontology'". Journal of the History of Philosophy 34:4. Johns Hopkins University Press., p. 587

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Deontological ethics.
Look up deontology in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deontology&oldid=1258908743"