Week 12 - Deontology
Wednesday, 12 November 2025
20:31
Deontology (Lecture 1) —
Comprehensive Notes
2) What is Deontology?
Core claim: An action is right or wrong because of the action’s
inherent character, not because of its consequences. So, unlike
utilitarianism (which asks “what produces the best outcomes?”),
deontology asks whether the principle behind your action is one you are
duty-bound to follow.
Central aspects:
• Motive (why you did it), and
• Duty (what you are obliged to do as a rational agent).
If you happen to produce good outcomes from bad motives (or by luck),
that does not give your action moral worth in the deontological sense.
For deontology, the rightness is built into the rule/principle you act
on, not the downstream net happiness.
3) Human Dignity
Why persons have dignity: Humans are rational (capable of
reasoning) and free (capable of choosing ends). Because of this, persons
possess intrinsic worth (dignity). Intrinsic worth means value that does
not depend on usefulness or results.
Practical upshot:
• We must respect persons—never use a person merely as a means
to our own goals.
• Things (objects, tools, money) can be used as means. Persons, by
contrast, must always be treated as ends in themselves—i.e., their
agency, plans, and capacity for choice must be respected.
Why this matters: Since people can set their own ends (life plans,
goals), ethics must protect freedom and rational agency rather than
exploit it.
4) Human Dignity and the Trolley Problem
Week 12 - Deontology Page 1
4) Human Dignity and the Trolley Problem
Scenario: A runaway trolley will kill five unless you flip a switch sending
it down a side track where it will kill one.
Deontological question: May we kill one to save five?
• If flipping the switch uses the one person solely as a means to save
the five, a strict dignity-based reading says no: we may not
instrumentalize a person—even for very good ends like saving
more lives.
What to learn for exams: The slide frames the deontological answer as
“No”—because all persons have intrinsic worth and may not be
sacrificed as mere resources for others’ ends.
5) Duty and Good Will
Good will: The inner motivation to act from duty—to do what is right
because it is right, not for advantage, praise, fear, or convenience.
Shopkeeper example:
A shopkeeper doesn’t shortchange a child because she fears losing
customers if caught. Deontological verdict: No moral worth—she
acted from self-interest (consequences for her business), not duty
(honesty because honesty is right).
Key criterion:
An action has moral worth only if done from duty, i.e., from
respect for the moral law, not for personal gain or desired
outcomes.
6) Two Kinds of “Imperatives” duties
(Obligations)
a) Hypothetical imperatives
• Form: “If you want X, do Y.” (e.g., If you want a degree, study.)
• Dependent on desire (the imperative disappears if the goal
disappears).
• Not moral imperatives for Kant because morality shouldn’t hinge on
personal wants.
b) Categorical imperatives
Week 12 - Deontology Page 2
• Form: “Do Y.” Full stop.
• Independent of your desires and ends.
• Expresses what you ought to do as such (e.g., Tell the truth, not
because it benefits you, but because truthfulness is right).
For exams: Moral duties = categorical, not conditional on preferences.
7) The Categorical Imperative (CI), 1st
Formulation — Universal Law
Formula: “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.”
How to apply (step-by-step):
1. Identify your maxim (the principle of your action stated
generally). Example: “When I need something I can’t afford, I will
make a false promise to get it.”
2. Universalize it: Imagine everyone acts on this principle.
3. Test for contradiction: Would that “world” be coherent?
○ If everyone lies to borrow, the institution of promising
collapses (no one trusts promises). Your maxim selfdefeats—lying to promise can’t work if promises aren’t
believed. That’s a contradiction in conception.
4. Moral verdict: If universalization yields contradiction or requires
making an exception for yourself, the action is impermissible.
Business example (from slide): Employee considers stealing because
the boss was unfair. Could a maxim permitting theft be universalized?
• If theft were a general rule, property and trust relations
collapse—business becomes impossible. So you may not make an
exception for yourself: stealing fails the universal law test.
8) The Categorical Imperative, 2nd
Formulation — Humanity as an End
Formula: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in yourself or
another, always as an end and never merely as a means.”
Meaning:
• Never coerce, deceive, or manipulate people—they must be able to
Week 12 - Deontology Page 3
• Never coerce, deceive, or manipulate people—they must be able to
consent as rational agents.
• To treat people as ends: respect their agency and support their
development as rational, moral beings.
Two kinds of freedom to protect:
• Negative freedom: freedom from interference/coercion (no one
forcing beliefs; no lying/tricking).
• Positive freedom: freedom to develop capacities (skills, judgment,
moral character). Good institutions enable this growth.
Business implications:
1. No coercion or deception in contracts, marketing, HR, or
management.
2. Arrange practices so that they foster employees’ rational/moral
development (e.g., fair evaluation, training, voice in decisions,
ethical cultures).
Loan example: You lie to a friend to borrow money you can’t repay.
Even if the consequences might be good, lying uses your friend as a
tool for your end. Not justified by the 2nd formulation.
9) The Categorical Imperative, 3rd
Formulation — Kingdom of Ends
Idea: Act as both a subject (who follows moral laws) and a sovereign
(who helps legislate them) in an ideal moral community where
everyone is treated as an end and laws are fair, general, and
mutually acceptable.
Corporate analogy (from your slide’s explanation):
• Rules apply equally from CEO to intern.
• Policies arise from respect, fairness, and moral equality.
• You should behave as if you are helping write universal, respectful
rules you would also be willing to live under.
Why this matters: It unites the first two formulations in a vision of a
community of mutual respect, where laws are those all rational
agents could endorse.
10) Comparing Theories: Rule Utilitarianism
vs. Deontology
Week 12 - Deontology Page 4
Rule utilitarianism: Respects rules/rights only instrumentally—as
long as they maximize overall happiness. If a rule (like privacy) stops
maximizing utility, a rule utilitarian would revise or drop it.
Deontology: Respects rights/duties intrinsically. You must follow
moral rules even when doing so reduces net happiness (e.g., don’t lie
to secure a big benefit), because violating a person’s dignity is wrong in
itself.
Exam angle: If a question says “a policy increases total happiness but
violates a right,” deontology likely says impermissible; rule
utilitarianism may say permissible if utility truly rises.
11) “Highest Good” Across Theories
• Virtue Ethics: Eudaimonia (human flourishing—excellent character
lived over a whole life).
• Act/Rule Utilitarianism: Utility (maximizing overall
happiness/well-being).
• Preference Utilitarianism: Satisfaction of preferences
(maximize fulfillment of individuals’ informed preferences).
• Ubuntu Ethics: The collective will/common moral position
(right action promotes harmonious community and shared
personhood through relationships).
• Deontology: Good Will (acting from duty out of respect for moral
law).
Why these differ: Each theory grounds ethics in a different
fundamental value—character excellence, aggregate outcomes,
preference satisfaction, communal harmony, or duty-respecting rational
agency.
12) Looking Ahead
Next week: Application lecture. Expect case studies where you’ll
apply the three CI formulations:
• 1st: Can the maxim be universal law?
• 2nd: Does it treat people as ends?
• 3rd: Would it fit a “kingdom of ends” (fair, consent-respecting)
policy?
Week 12 - Deontology Page 5