DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
In ethical theories, if we mainly focus on the action
itself, then we use deontological ethics (also known
as deontology or duty ethics). In duty ethics, an
action is morally right if it is in agreement with
moral rules/norms. There are four central duty
theories.
 The first is that championed by 17th century
German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who
classified dozens of duties under three headings:

 DUTIES TO GOD,
 DUTIES TO ONESELF, and
 DUTIES TO OTHERS.
Concerning our duties towards
God, he argued that there are two
kinds:
a theoretical duty to know the existence
and nature of God, and
 a practical duty to both inwardly and
outwardly worship God.

Concerning our duties towards
oneself, these are also of two sorts:
duties of the soul, which involve
developing one’s skills and talents, and
 duties of the body, which involve not
harming our bodies, as we might through
gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing
oneself.

Concerning our duties towards
others
Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties,
which are universally binding on people, and
conditional duties, which are the result of
contracts between people. Conditional duties
involve various types of agreements, the principal
one of which is the duty is to keep one’s promises.
Absolute duties are of three sorts:

 avoid wronging others,
 treat people as equals, and
 promote the good of others.
Rights Theory

A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most
generally, a “right” is a justified claim against another
person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by
you.
Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person
imply the duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to
payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10.

This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most
influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th
century British philosopher John Locke, who argued that the
laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone’s
life, health, liberty or possessions. These are our natural
rights, given to us by God.

Following Locke, the United
States Declaration of
Independence authored by
Thomas Jefferson recognizes
three foundational rights: life,
liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Jefferson and others
rights theorists maintained that
we deduce other more specific
rights from these, including the
rights of property, movement,
speech, and religious
expression.
There are four features traditionally
associated with moral rights.

A third and more recent duty-based theory is that
by British philosopher W.D. Ross, which
emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and
18th century counterparts, Ross argues that our
duties are “part of the fundamental nature of the
universe.” However, Ross’s list of duties is much
shorter, which he believes reflects our actual
moral convictions:
Fidelity: the duty to keep promises
 Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we
harm them
 Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
 Justice: the duty to recognize merit
 Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of
others
 Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue
and intelligence
 Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others


Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we
must choose between two conflicting duties. In a
classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbour’s
gun and promise to return it when he asks for it.
One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbour pounds on
my door and asks for the gun so that he can take
vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty
of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the
other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates
me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the
gun.
Prima Facie
According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of
these duties is my actual duty, and which is my
apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty
of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I
should not return the gun.
 Prima Facie (on its first appearance, or at first sight
~ the literal translation would be "at first face"), is
used in modern legal English to signify that on first
examination, a matter appears to be self-evident
from the facts. (But remember appearances can be
deceptive ex. smoking gun)

IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)





Born and raised in Prussia
(N.E. Germany)
Grew up in poverty-stricken,
but very religious Protestant
family
Family were Pietists –
believed in personal
devotion and Bible reading
Lived near home all his life
(never went beyond 100 km
of his birthplace)
His life was all about routine
– everything was nearly
scheduled
Mr. Kant: Teacher and Author
After university, Kant worked as a private
tutor and teacher
 He became a university professor of logic
and metaphysics
 Kant wrote books – difficult to understand
 Critique of Pure Reason took 12 years to
write and contains the longest sentences
ever written.
 He greatly influenced Western thought and
philosophy

Immanuel Kant



Like Aristotle, Kant also held that “the good” is the aim of a
moral life. But he approached the question of how one attains
the good in quite a different way. He recognized that in the
domain of ethics we cannot arrive at the same type of certainty
as we can in physics and math. Ethics does not present us with
rational cognitive certainty but with practical certainty. In this
practical area of our lives, he held that there are three areas of
interest:
God
Freedom
Immortality
We may not be able to prove any of these empirically,
nonetheless, we need these practical principles to be able to
pursue and attain the supreme good.
Graphic Organizer for Kantian Ethics
AUTONOMY OF THE WILL

Kant held that a person should decide for him/herself the
moral laws that he/she will follow. A person should place a
moral norm upon him/herself and obey it. This is his/her
duty. For Kant, you are your own legislator. It is your
autonomy, your decision to act in accordance with your
good will. You are not constrained by another. He called
this ability to decide for oneself “autonomy of the will.” In
this respect, Kant’s ethics are more individual based than
Aristotle’s. To Aristotle, a “good person” seeks his/her
happiness within the context of a community. Heteronomy
is allowing someone or something else to decide the moral
laws that one will follow. Kant’s ethics are to be discovered
in private life, in the inner convictions and autonomy of the
individual.
THE GOOD WILL

Kant argues that nothing is good in itself except a “good
will.” Facets of human personality such as intelligence and
judgement and virtues such as courage, determination and
perseverance are perhaps good and desirable, but only if
the will that makes use of them are good. It is the same
with gifts of fortune of fortune such as power, wealth and
honour. These will produce pride and conceit unless the
person has a good will, which can correct the influence
these have upon the mind and ensure that it is adapted to
its proper end. Moreover, an impartial rational spectator
would not feel any pleasure at seeing a person without a
good will enjoying continuous happiness without deserving
it.

A “good will” is a will that is motivated to perform an
act because it is a “moral duty” and not merely
because the act is in one’s self-interest or gives one
pleasure. For Kant, a human action is morally good
when it is done for the sake of duty.
An act of kindness to a friend may be praiseworthy but it is not a moral
act. It becomes moral when you are busy or when you are more
inclined to do other things. For example, you might not want to go to
your great aunt’s funeral, but it is your duty. You chose to go to
honour the family.

Real moral worth is motivated by duty, not by
inclination (desire). In other words, moral worth is
measured not by the results of one’s actions, but by
the motive behind them. Kant’s language is full of
“should”. It is a language not of desires but of “ought.”
MAXIMS

By will, Kant meant the uniquely human capacity to be
motivated by reasons or “maxims.” Kant argues that
humans are capable of determining through reason what
is morally correct. To be motivated by duty is to be
motivated to do something because one believes it is the
way that all human beings ought to behave. Acting
morally then is acting only on those maxims or reasons
that you believe everyone – universally – ought to live up
to. For Kant, my will is “good without qualification” only
if it always has in view one principle: Would I still
perform the actions that I plan to perform if I knew that
my maxims (reasons) would become laws of nature that
everyone would have to follow? If not, then I should not
perform the action.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Kant argued that moral duties or imperatives are
categorical —they should be obeyed without
exception.
 Individuals should do what is morally right no
matter what the consequences are.
A great analogy is unconditional love.
That is love without limitation,
exception or condition.
For example, it is wrong to not care
for our children even if it results in
some great benefit, such as financial
savings.


A categorical imperative is fundamentally
different from a hypothetical imperative that
hinges on some personal desire or belief that we
have, for example,

Kant believes that there is just one command or
imperative that is categorical. He believes that from
this one categorical imperative, this universal
command, we can derive all commands of duty.
Kant’s categorical imperative states:
I should never do something unless
1. it is possible for everyone to do
it and the practice still remains
2. I am willing to have
everyone do it
According to Kant,
“what is right for
one is right for all.”
When applying the first categorical
imperative...

We need to ask ourselves one question: Would I want everyone else to make the
decision I did? If the answer is yes, the choice is justified. If the answer is no, the
decision is wrong.
Example #1: Would it be morally right to break a promise in order to suit your own
purposes?
Ask yourself: Is it possible for everyone make promises and then break them when
it is convenient?
Reason: Clearly breaking promises like this could not become something that
everyone does, because then people would stop making promises altogether.
Who would accept anyone’s promise, knowing that everyone breaks promises
when it is convenient for them?
Larger Picture: Once everyone starts breaking promises, then promises are no
longer possible.
Example: If enough people made such false promises, the banking industry would
break down because lenders would refuse to provide funds.



Ask yourself: Am I willing to have everyone break promises in
order to suit their own purposes?
Reason: No because then no one would accept promises that I
would make with them. Who would accept anyone’s promise
knowing that everyone breaks promises when it is convenient for
them?
Conclusion: Since it is not possible for everyone to make
promises and break them when it is convenient, it is wrong for
you to do so. It is wrong to make exceptions for ourselves: if
everyone cannot do something, then doing it is wrong for me.
Note that Kant does not argue that the consequences of a
universal practice would be bad and therefore the practice is
bad. Instead he claims that the practice is self-contradictory;
the practice itself becomes impossible once everyone does it.
His appeal is to logical consistency, not to consequences.




Ask yourself: Is it possible for everyone to cheat on exams?
Reason: Clearly cheating on exams could not become
something that everyone does, because then people would
stop using exams to assess people altogether. Who would
accept anyone’s mark on an exam as a true measure of
what they have learned, knowing that everyone obtains the
answers from elsewhere?
Larger Picture: Once everyone begins cheating on exams,
then the practice of using exams as assessments of an
individual’s learning are no longer possible.
Example: If enough people cheated on exams, employers
or people who employ professional occupations would have
no way of knowing who is truly qualified for a position.



Ask yourself: Am I willing to have everyone cheat on
exams?
Reason: No because then I might the services of one who
needs to be knowledgeable in that area of service and I
may need them to do the best job possible ex.
Neurosurgeon. (Would you like it if you found out that
your neurosurgeon cheated on all his/her exams?)
Conclusion: Since it is not possible for everyone to cheat
on exams, it is wrong for you to do so. It is wrong to
make exceptions for ourselves: if everyone cannot do
something, then doing it is wrong for me.


Ask yourself: Is it possible for everyone to refuse to help others when
they are in great need?
Reason: Actually it is possible for everyone to refuse help to others who
are in great need.
Ask yourself: Am I willing to have everyone refuse help to the needy?
 Reason: No because then I might need others to desperately help me
one day. No one would be willing to live in a world where no one ever
helped those in great need, although such a world is possible.
 Conclusion: Since it is not possible for everyone to refuse helping the
needy, it is wrong for you to do so. It is wrong to make exceptions for
ourselves: if everyone cannot do something, then doing it is wrong for
me.

So even Kant believes that there are some actions that are wrong, not
because it is impossible for everyone to do them, but because we are
not willing to have everyone do them.
Kant’s Second Categorical Imperative
“So act in such a way as to
treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that
of any other always as a
means and never merely as
We should always treat ourselves
an end.”
and other people with dignity, and
never use them or ourselves as
mere instruments to achieve some
selfish purpose.
Kant also argued for the importance of treating people as an
end, and never as a means to an end.

For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions
toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person.
Every person has a fundamental human dignity that gives her
person value “beyond all price.”

Thus it is wrong to use people or manipulate them without
their consent for our own selfish desires. Others can help us
reach our objectives, but they should never be considered
solely as a means to an end. We should, instead, respect and
encourage the capacity of others to choose for themselves.
Kant expanded his view on this second version of the categorical
imperative using the following four dimensions;
Strict duty to oneself:

A person who is thinking of committing suicide
should ask himself whether his action is
consistent with the idea that humanity is an
end in itself. If he kills himself to escape his
suffering, he is using himself as a means to
maintain a tolerable existence. But a person is
not a thing. A person cannot be used merely
as a means, but must be respected as an end
in himself.
Strict duty to others:

Is it wrong to lie or to steal from a person?
Clearly if we lie or steal we are using other
people as means to achieve our own interests
but furthermore, lying or stealing involves
doing something to a person without his free
and knowing consent. Morality requires that
we always give others the opportunity to
decide for themselves whether or not they will
join us in our actions. This rules out all forms of
deception, force, coercion and manipulation.
Meritorious duty to oneself:

We should also refrain from violating our own
humanity as an end in itself, but we should
also try to make our actions harmonize with
the fact that our humanity is such an end.
When we neglect to develop our abilities we
are not doing something that is destructive of
humanity as an end in itself. But such neglect
clearly does not advance humanity as an end
in itself.
Meritorious duty to others:

Donating to charity in order to genuinely help others, for
example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the
inherent value of the recipient. The second version of Kant’s
imperative implies that we should promote people’s capacity to
choose for themselves. It also implies that we should strive to
develop this capacity in ourselves and in those around us (for
example, through education). Furthermore, Kant would say
that when people are in great need, their ability to choose for
themselves is compromised. Since we have a duty to promote
people’s capacity to choose for themselves, we should help
those whose poverty prevents them from exercising their
capacity to choose for themselves. By contrast, we treat
someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person
as a tool to achieve something else. It is wrong, for example, if
we give to charity in order to achieve a break on our taxes.
ELABORATING ON KANTS IDEA OF
HUMANITY AS AN END
According to Kant (and Aristotle, if you remember) we are rational and autonomous
beings with the capacity for reason and freedom to choose.
Person’s have absolute value (intrinsic value) not relative value.
Kant argues that humanity and the capacity to reason are undifferentiated in all of us. –
This is what makes us all EQUAL.
Respect for Kant is respect for humanity which is universal.
In this way Kantian respect is unlike:
 LOVE (I love this person because they have certain qualities I admire)
 SYMPATHY (I can relate to that person because they shared a similar experience)
 SOLIDARITY (I will support this particular group of people because we share the same
ideals)
 ALTRUISM (I will sacrifice my life for this person because they are related to me)
All of the above reasons for caring for people have to do with who they are in particular.
So the reason I should respect the dignity of others doesn’t have to do with something in
particular about them, it is because I can identify the same dignity in them that I have in
myself.
In the end….violating my own dignity is like violating it in another.
Criticisms of Kantian Theory
Kant’s imperative is a simple yet powerful ethical tool. Not only is the
principle easy to remember, but asking if we would want our behaviour to
be made into a universal standard should also prevent a number of
ethical miscues. Emphasis on duty builds moral courage. Those driven by
the conviction that certain behaviours are either right or wrong no matter
what the situation are more likely to
 blow the whistle on unethical behaviour,
 resist group pressure to compromise personal ethical standards,
 Follow through on their choices
Kant’s emphasis on respecting the right of others to choose is an
important guideline to keep in mind when making ethical choices in
organizations. This standard promotes the sharing of information and
concern for others while condemning deceptive and coercive tactics.
Through all this Kant also reminds us to take care of ourselves. Influenced
by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and
others, such as developing one’s talents.
Criticism #1

In Kant’s theory, rules cannot be bent. This reminds us of
absolutism. So, the question arises whether all the moral laws
form a consistent system of norms. Critiques of Kant’s system
of reasoning often center on his assertion that there are
universal principles that should be followed in every situation.
In almost every case, we can think of exceptions. For instance,
many of us agree that killing is wrong yet support capital
punishment for serial murderers. We value privacy rights but
have given many up in the name of national security. Then, too,
how do we account for those who honestly believe they are
doing the right thing even when they are engaged in evil?
“Consistent Nazis” were convinced that killing Jews was morally
right. They wanted their fellow Germans to engage in this
behaviour; they did what they perceived to be their duty.
Criticism #2

Another downside is that Kantian theory prescribes to rigidly
adhere to the rules, irrespective of the consequences. But in
real life, following a rule can of course have very negative
consequences. The acts that the categorical imperative says
are always wrong do not always seem wrong. For example,
Kant says that it is absolutely wrong ever to lie, no matter what
good might come from telling a lie. Yet is it wrong to lie to save
your life? To save someone from serious pain or injury? Kant’s
theory does not deal with these exceptions and there is no
compelling reason why certain actions should be prohibited
without exception. Apparently Kant failed to distinguish
between persons making no exceptions to rules and rules
having no exceptions. If a person should make no exceptions
to rules, then one should never except oneself from being
bound by a rule. But it does not therefore follow that the rule
has no exceptions.
Criticism #3

Conflicting duties also pose a challenge to
deontological thinking. Complex ethical dilemmas
often involve competing obligations. For example,
we should be loyal to both our bosses and
coworkers. Yet being loyal to a supervisor may
mean breaking loyalty with peers, such as when a
supervisor asks us to reveal the source of a
complaint when we’ve promised to keep the
identity of that co-worker secret. How do we
determine which duty has priority? Kant’s
imperative offers little guidance in such situations.
Criticism #4

There is one final weakness in Kant’s theory
that is worth noting. By focusing on
intention, Kant downplayed the importance
of ethical action. Worthy intent does little
good unless it is acted out. We typically
judge individuals based on what they do,
not on their motives.