Deontological Approach
Dr. Ching Wa Wong
City University of Hong Kong
saching@cityu.edu.hk
1
Using a person: a preliminary exercise
 The trolley problem again.
 Give a record of you feelings after seeing the
following pictures.
2
3
4
Ching Wa pushed you!
Help!
5
Part 1
Kant and deontological
ethics
6
Deontology
 The theory of duty or moral obligation.
 Duty:


Role-related duty
General duty
 Obligation:

Requirement set on a person because of
his/her identity.
7
Basic Kantian themes
1. Personal autonomy:
 The moral person is a rational self-leglislator.
2. Respect:
 Persons should always be treated as an end,
not a means. ‘No persons should be used.’
3. Duty:
 the moral action is one that we must do in
accordance with a certain principle, not
because of its good consequence.
8
Kant’s philosophy:
 What can I know?

Critique of Pure Reason
(1781)
 What ought I do?

Groundwork for the
Metaphysic of Morals
(1785); Critique of
Practical Reason (1788)
 What can I hope for?

Critique of Judgment
(1790); Religion within
the Limits of Reason
Alone (1793)
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
9
Phenomena and Noumena
 Phenomena:

things as they appear to us; empirical and
therefore changeable.
 Noumena:

things-in-themselves, which can’t be known by
the use of senses.
 Kant argues that if there is such a thing as
moral reality, it must be founded on the
noumena, and this is because…
10
The moral law is in its character
absolute, and it can allow no
exception. And empirical
knowledge simply cannot
establish such a law.
11
Part 2
Kant’s Conception of Moral
Values
12
The moral worth
 On Kant’s view, the moral worth of an action
is not determined by its consequences
because:
13
1. It is possible that someone does something out
of evil intention, but ends up bringing good
consequences to society.
2. It is also possible that someone does something
out of good intention, but ends up bringing
about bad consequences.
3. The consequences of an action are not under
our control.
4. We can only control our motives when acting as
a moral person.
5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given
by our good will.
14
15
The right motive
 ‘For example, it is always a matter of duty that a
dealer should not over charge an inexperienced
purchaser; and wherever there is much commerce
the prudent tradesman does not overcharge, but
keeps a fixed price for everyone, so that a child
buys of him as well as any other. Men are thus
honestly served; but this is not enough to make us
believe that the tradesman has so acted from duty
and from principles of honesty: his own advantage
required it;
16
 it is out of the question in this case to suppose that
he might besides have a direct inclination in
favour of the buyers, so that, as it were, from love
he should give no advantage to one over another.
Accordingly the action was done neither from duty
nor from direct inclination, but merely with a
selfish view.’
(http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/metaphys-of-morals.txt)
17
 The right motive can be a motive out of either:



self-interest,
sympathy (natural inclination), or
a sense of duty (the voice of conscience).
 Only the final motive will count on Kant’s view.
18
Hypothetical Vs categorical
imperatives
 Hypothetical imperative:


What I ought to do if some conditions hold.
E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I
want to pass my examination.
 Categorical imperative:


What I ought to do unconditionally.
E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter
what goal I have.
19
Two formulations of the
categorical imperative
Act only on that maxim that you can will as
a universal law.
2. Always treat humanity, whether your own
person or that of another, never simply as a
means but always at the same time as an
end.
1.
20
One Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are
categorical imperatives.
They are universally valid and have equal
forces to EQUALLY FREE and
RATIONAL AGENTS.
21
An example: why lying is wrong


If we use consequences as the basis of
moral worth, sometimes lying is right
because it makes a lot of people happy.
But the maxim that supports lying cannot
pass the ‘universality test’ and the ‘humanity
test’.
22
Lying is wrong because:
If everybody lies, then words lose its
function to express truth. The principle of
lying therefore cannot be universalized.
2. Lying can be successful only if we use other
people’s ignorance. But in this case we are
treating them only as a means to our ends.
1.
23
Freedom and the kingdom of ends
 Given that all rational beings are equal, a kingdom
comprising those beings must not favour any party or
treat the other as inferior.
 It follows that in the kingdom of ends everybody
should be equally free and should not be a means to
other people’s end.
 The law thus set up is a contract between free and
rational agents.
24
Morality is thus a matter of social
contract made between free and
rational agents.
25
Part 3
Questions about Kantian
Ethics
26
Motivational problems
 Why should I obey to the moral law?

Answer: Because I want to be a wholly free
(autonomous) person who acts on the
principle that I find most reasonable.
 Why should I respect other persons?

Answer: This is simply because rational
persons are equal.
27
Freedom or equality?
 Is autonomy or equality the fundamental
value in ethics? What if they conflict each
other?


Answer: In principle they do not conflict each
other, because both are built up in the idea of
reason.
But in practice…?
28
Conflicts of duties
 If duty A conflicts with duty B, how can they
be universalized?
 Example:



I have a universal duty not to kill the Fat man.
I also have a universal duty to save the five
workers.
What should I do?
29
Non-rational beings
 The moral law is set up by rational agents who
mutually respect each other. Non-rational beings
such as animals are not protected by that law
because they don’t have this sense of responsibility.
 If we have a duty not to be cruel to animals, it cannot
be for their sake, but for the reason that we will hurt
our own rationality in doing so (that we will develop a
bad personality in this practice).
30
Some questions to consider

If I am a Kantian, should I support:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Participatory democracy?
Representative (market) democracy?
Capitalism?
Revolutionary Marxism?
Confucian ethics?
Anarchism?
31
Part 4
Application:
Research ethics
32
Using human beings in experiments
 Stanley Milgram’s experiment
 Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study
 Main question:

When will be wrong to use a person in
academic research?
33
The doctrine of informed consent
 The Nuremberg code:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential. This means that the person involved should have the
legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be
able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention
of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or
other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have
sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter
involved as to enable him to make an understanding and
enlightened decision.
34
Autonomy: A Kantian interpretation
 By saying that we respect persons as autonomous
agents, we imply that they are having equal statuses
with us, that we cannot treat them as a means only.
 Using somebody implies an imbalanced power
structure, meaning that the users are



in a higher rank;
have more power;
have ends in the action plan that the inferior party
cannot share.
35
Autonomy thus requires that if I am to
be treated as a means, I must also be
able to recognize the experimenter’s
end as my end. If I can recognize the
promoting of collective interests as an
end that I share without contradiction, I
can say being deceived is my choice.
36
Milgram’s experiment
I am a learner. And I
have to remember the
…SNOOPY
words of the teacher
and read them back.
Teacher, give him a
punishment. A 15 volt
electric shock.
APPLE--PEACH;
LEMON—HONEY;
CAR—TRASH;
DEMOCRACY—PLATO;
I am
a teacher now.
CHINGWA-CHINGWA—TEDDY
BEAR…
Wrong!
Move on to
the next
word!
If
the
answer
is
you
say…
Another
In
You
If
itthe
isgive
are
experiment
incorrect…
participant,
hired
the learner
bycorrect,
an
you
after
experimenter
some
play
drawing
the
words
partthe
to
toofremember,
conduct
lot,
a
teacher.
plays
an experiment.
and
ask
thehim
parttoofread
a learner.
out after some time.
37
The punishment part
High voltage: 450
Dangerous
Low voltage:
Medium voltage:
15 Do it. I am in
250
charge of all
this.
are
in regret.
control
of a instructing
machine
generating
a
TheYou
experimenter
You
keeps
‘Why
didn’t
I
stop,
you
man?’
to
increase
You
do15
it accordingly.
voltage
ranging
from
to full
450
volts.great pain.
The
learner
screams
and
shows
voltage, saying that he takes
responsibility
for that.
38
Milgram’s trick
You fooled
me?
No one in fact got
hurt. The learner is
a great pretender.
You are cheated, man.
There’s no electric
shock at all.
You lucky
are angry.
think
it is
unethical.
The
thing,You
or the
bad
thing
is that…
39
The Stanford Prison: A case study
40
Final questions
 Which experiment is more unethical
according to Kantian ethics?
 Is the respect to autonomy something
absolute? Is a lesser degree of autonomy
totally unacceptable?
 How can we respect people when they are
not fully rational?
41
References
 Driver, Julia, Ethics: the Fundamentals,
Blackwell Publishing, ch.5
 Mackinnon, Barbara (2007), Ethics: Theory
and Contemporary Issues, Thomson
Wadsworth, ch.5.
 Rachels, James (1995), The Elements of
Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, ch.9 & 10.
42