Lesson 4:
DEONTOLOGY
PART 2
CECIL P. DAGA
Teacher
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
2
To figure out how the faculty of
reason can be the cause of an
autonomous action, we need to learn a
method or a specific procedure that will
demonstrate autonomy of the will.
3
KINDS OF MORAL THEORIES
SUBSTANTIVE
MORAL THEORY
 Immediately
promulgates
the
specific actions that comprise that
theory.
 As such, it identifies the particular
duties in a straightforward manner
that the adherents of the theory
must follow.
TEN COMMANDMENTS
FORMAL MORAL
THEORY
 Does
not supply
or
To be
exact, thea rules
formal
commands straightaway.
moral
theory will not give us
 Provides us the "form” or
a list
of rulesof or
“framework"
thecommands.
moral theory.
To provide
the "form"
of aamoral
Instead,
it will
give us
set
is to supply a procedure
of theory
instructions
on how to
and the criteria for determining, on
make
a list
or
one's own,
the of
rulesduties
and moral
Commands.
moral
commands.
COOKBOOK
4
Kant endorses this formal kind of moral theory.
Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten,
embodies a formal moral theory
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
provides a procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness
of an action.
Act only according to such a maxim, by which you
can at once will that it become universal law. (Ak
4:421)
5
Four Key Elements
ACTION
MAXIM
WILL
UNIVERSAL LAW
6
Kant states that we must formulate an action as a maxim,
which he defines as a "subjective principle of action” (Ak
4:422).
In this context, a maxim consists of a "rule" that we live by
in our day-to-day Iives, but it does not have the status of a
law or a moral command that binds us to act in a certain
way.
Rather, maxims depict the patterns of our behaviour.
Thus, maxims are akin to the "standard operating
procedures" (SOPs) in our lives.
We have many maxims in our daily lives, and we live
according to them.
7
Kant claims that we ought to act according to the maxim "by
which you can at once will that it become a universal law.
What does it mean to will a maxim that can
become a universal law?
UNIVERSALIZABLE
("will that it become a universal law”)
This means nothing other than imagining a world in which the
maxim, or personal rule, that I live by were adopted by everyone as
their own maxim.
8
 This mental act of imagining a universalized maxim does
not mean we picture a world in which everyone actually
followed the maxim. Instead, we merely imagine the
maxim as a law that everyone ought to follow.
 The proper way to imagine the universalized maxim is
not by asking, "What if everyone did that maxim?" but by
asking, “What if everyone were obligated to follow that
maxim?"
9
A man who needs money, but has no
immediate access to obtain it except by
borrowing it from a friend.
The predicament is simply about him borrowing money, while knowing
that he cannot pay it back.
False Promising
Is it really wrong to
borrow money without
intending to pay it back?
"When l am in need of money, I shall
borrow it even when I know I cannot
pay it back."
10
Remember that Kant states that we should act according to a maxim by which we
can at once will that it become a universal law.
What does it mean to universalize the maxim about
borrowing money without intending to return it?
Whenever she is in need
of money, is obligated to
borrow from another even
when she knows she
cannot pay it back.
Hypothetical World
2 POSSIBILITIES
make
sense
not make
sense
Logical plausibility Self-contradiction or
logical impossibility
11
Let us assess that hypothetical world.
If borrowing money without intending to pay were
everyone's obligation to comply with, what would happen
to the status of the universalized maxim?
 The purpose of borrowing money would be defeated because no
one will lend money.
The institution of money-borrowing would lose its meaning
if everyone was obligated to borrow money without intending to
pay it back. As a universalized maxim, it would self – destruct
because it becomes impossible.
12
This is how Kant assesses it:
Here I see straightaway that it could never be valid
as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself,
but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality
of a law that each person, when he believes himself to be
in need, could promise whatever he pleases with the intent
not to keep it, would make the promise and the purpose
that he may have impossible, since no one would believe
what was promised him but would laugh at all such
expressions as futile pretense (Ak 4:422).
13
Kant distinguishes
between being
"consistent with itself"
"contradict itself"
MAXIM:
"When l am in need of money, I shall borrow it even
when I know I cannot pay it back "
“TO BORROW“
implies taking and using something with the intent to return it.
14
 The contradiction is evident: to borrow (implies returning) but the
intention is not to return.
 Of course, in the real world, many people borrow money without
intending to pay, but it is the logical plausibility of the universalized
maxim that is at stake.
 lt makes no sense. This is why Kant claims that the universalized
maxim “could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be
consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself“.
 Thus, we can conclude that the act of borrowing money without
intending to pay is rationally impermissible. Here, we discover two
ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The universalized maxim
becomes either (1) self-contradictory or (2) the act and its purpose
become impossible.
15
What is the result of all these?
 We reveal the rational permissibility of actions insofar as they cannot
be rejected as universalizable maxims.
 In contrast, those universalized maxims that are rejected are shown
to be impermissible, that is, they are irrational and thus, in Kant's
mind, immoral.
But what does rational permissibility mean?
Simply put, it refers to the intrinsic quality of an action that it is objectively
and necessarily rational. Using the universalizability test, we can reveal the
objective necessity of an action as rational.
Therefore, we have demonstrated that borrowing money without intending
to pay, as a kind of false promise, is objectively and necessarily wrong, insofar
as it encounters a self – contradiction and logical impossibility when it is
16
universalized as a maxim.
 At this juncture, it has become clear how Kant's
categorical imperative is a formal, not substantive,
moral philosophy.
 Hence, we have the capacity to make our own list of
moral commands. Instead of receiving them from
others, we use our own rational faculty to produce our
own list of moral duties.
17
REGGIE
"When a suitcase that does not belong to me
is left in my cab, I shall take its contents and
sell them for my own benefit."
Does the universalized maxim encounter a self-contradiction,
or does it remain self-consistent?
o Certainly, the meaning of ownership, when a suitcase belongs to
someone, is to have the right to possess, use, and dispose of the
thing as one pleases.
o So what happens when a person is obligated to take possession of an
object that does not belong to her?
CONTRADICTORY
18
LYING
PAY FOR WHAT YOU
BUY
RETURNING WHAT
YOU BORROWED
MURDER
CHEATING
SUBMITTING
PROJECTS ON TIME
ADULTERY
Can the maxims in the specific actions under those
moral issues be universalized without encountering selfcontradiction?
It is for each one of us to test on our own, not for Kant
or any other authority figure to determine for us.
19
o In summary, this procedure is properly used when one
wishes to determine the moral permissibility of an action.
o Indeed, we are often already told which actions are right
or wrong, but this knowledge is usually based on what
authority figures say.
o So what is the categorical imperative for, if we already
know whether or not an action is right?
20
The categorical imperative is precisely for the rational
will that is autonomous. Recall that autonomy implies a selflegislating will. The test for universalizability makes possible
that self-legislation, for the result of the categorical
imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to distinguish
between permissible and impermissible moral acts. Any
rational will can then begin the work of producing a list of
duties, what a rational and autonomous will believes to be
right and wrong actions.
21
In conclusion, what can deontology
contribute to our lives, specifically to our
moral reflection?
ENLIGHTENMENT
MORALITY
This kind of morality is opposed to paternalism, which
evokes the metaphor of father (from the Latin pater).
22
• This is therefore the place of deontology in the spirit of
enlightenment morality.
• Deontology is based on the "light" of one’s own reason
when maturity and rational capacity take hold of a
person's decision-making.
• With
deontology,
particularly
the
method
of
universalizability, we can validate and adopt those rules
and laws that are right and reject those that are irrational,
thus impermissible because they are self-contradictory.
23
This is then the practical value of deontology
in our moral reflection: we are encouraged to have
courage to think on our own, to use our rational will
against external authorities as well as internal base
impulses that tend to undermine our autonomy and
self-determination.
24
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!
25