 A moral theory that evaluates actions that

greek words: are done because of ―duty‖

Deon- being necessary  Humans have a duty to act morally even if
logy-study their actions produce unfavourable
consequences.
 Humans have a duty to obey these moral
“Study of Duty and absolutes in order to lead a moral lifestyle
Obligation” without regard for any consequences those
actions might produce.

For example if lying is wrong then telling a lie to a

person is wrong, even if the lie would prevent a
death.
 Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that
people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach
tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is
or isn’t ethical.
 In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one
of those kinds of normative theories regarding which
choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted.
 In other words, deontology falls within the domain of
moral theories that guide and assess our choices of
what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to
those that guide and assess what kind of person we
are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories).
 (1724-1804) is one of the most influential
philosophers in the history of Western philosophy.
His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology,
ethics, and aesthetics have had a profound impact
on almost every philosophical movement that
followed him.
 He is a German Enlightenment philosopher who is
thought to herald the ―Copernician Revolution in
Philosophy
 Developed revolutionary insights concerning
human mind and the condition for the possibility of
knowledge.
 Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals
(1785) is one of his primary text that brings our
attention to the fact that we human beings have
the faculty called Rational Will.
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: "Groundwork of
the Metaphysic of Morals" (1785), "Critique of Practical
Reason" (1788) and "Metaphysics of Morals" (1797), and he
formulated it in three different ways :
 Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become
a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation.
 Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself
or other), as both the means of an action, but also as an end.
 Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of
a hypothetical "kingdom of ends", and therefore only in such a way
that would harmonize with such a kingdom if those laws were
binding on all others.
For Kant there was only one ´intrinsically good thing´ and that is a
´good will´. To have a good will is to do ones duty. Kant thought that
morality rarely had anything to do with happiness and is all to do
with DUTY. He argued that whenever people make decisions and
actions that benefit themselves at the expense of other people then
they are acting selfishly and therefore immorally. Even if people
appear to be acting unselfishly and honestly they can still be acting
immorally if their actions are not based on duty and a good will.
 According to Kant, Rational Will is the ―Capacity to act according to
principles that we determine for ourselves.‖
I’m Simply, humans are not only
Sentient reacting to surroundings and
internal impulses but are also
conceiving of ways to act
according to what is morally
right or act according to what is
their duty-DEONTOLOGY

Sentience means an organism has the ability to and Rationality consists of mental faculty to construct
navigate its external environment. They eat, fight, ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate
reproduce, and sleep. Both human and animals interact in
and with the world, reacting to external and stimuli and
surroundings. Humans have the ability to stop and
internal impulses to survive and thrive. think about what they are doing.
  Kant strongly believe that what separates humans from
animals is our ability to REASON. It is this faculty that enables
us to act freely and against our instincts and desires if we so
choose. It is also the reason why we are superior to the rest of
the animal kingdom.
 According to him, animals if it is true that they do not possess
the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of having duties. So
as long as humans have rationality, there will be the tension
between our base impulses (good or bad intentions) and our
rational will (morally good duty).
Situation: You find a lost wallet
Base Impulse: I will not return the wallet because it can help me supplement my daily needs.
Rational Will: I will return the wallet because it is my duty to return all lost things regardless of
the consequences that I can get.
Animal Choice (Heteronomy)
 Determinable only by inclination (Sensible Impulse, Stimulus)
 Bodily instincts and desires such as the urge to eat, drink, sleep or have sexual
intercourse.
Free Choice (Autonomy)
 Determined by pure reason
 Human freedom resides in this capacity of reason to intervene, to mediate within
animal choice.
 With the faculty of reason, a person can break the immediacy of stimulus and reaction
by stopping to deliberate and assess possible alternative actions.
 Can be affected but is not determined by sensible impulses
What does it mean for a human to be affected but not determined by sensible
impulse?
It implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduced to
mere animality. The human person is not only an animal but it is also rational
 Autonomy is an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-
governance. Beyond that, it is a much-contested concept that comes
up in a number of different arenas. For example, there is the folk
concept of autonomy, which usually operates as an inchoate desire
for freedom in some area of one’s life, and which may or may not be
connected with the agent’s idea of the moral good. Moral autonomy,
usually traced back to Kant, is the capacity to deliberate and to give
oneself the moral law, rather than merely heeding the injunctions of
others.
 In Kantian moral philosophy : the capacity of an agent to act in
accordance with objective morality rather than under the influence
of desires.
 Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy, which
is the opposite of heteronomy.
Autonomy – self-law / self-legislating. It is the property of the will in
those instances when pure reason is the cause of the action.
Heteronomy – other law or is the simple legislation and imposition of a
law by an external authority. It occurs when any foreign impulse is what
compels a person to act.
Autonomy belongs to each human person.
Individuals should make their own choices
about how to live their lives, and should be
independent from the group. In the
modern world, this view of autonomy
tends to be more popular.

Autonomy belongs to the group. Communities (such

as cities, tribes, or families) should be allowed to
govern themselves and make their own collective
decisions. However, the individuals within those
groups should not be autonomous — individuals
should make decisions based on what is best for the
group. This view of autonomy was much more
common in the ancient world, and still plays a role in
nationalist revolutions, wars of independence, etc.
 It was set out by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel
Kant as part of his work Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. It
is part of the first formulation of his categorical imperative, which
states that the only morally acceptable maxims of our actions are
those that could rationally be willed to be universal law.
 Universalizability is not a substantive moral principle but a logical
feature of the moral terms: anyone who uses such terms as ―right‖
and ―ought‖ is logically committed to universalizability.
 Universal judgments or principals are, in a way then,
also impartial. They are impartial because the person who makes
them will be required to judge him or herself according to the same
standard by which he or she judges others.
―The task of the principle of universalizability is to imagine all our acts
taking place in a world in which all rational beings would always act
according to that maxim whenever the possibility were open.‖
Substantive Moral Theory – promulgates the specific actions that comprises
that theory. It identifies the particular duties in a straightforward manner that the
adherents of the theory must follow.
Example : The set of Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition
because it was articulated mostly in the form of straightforward moral
command : ―Honor your father and mother,‖ ―You shall not kill,‖ and so forth.

Formal Moral Theory – does not supply the rules or commands straightaway. It
does not tell you what you may or may not do. Instead, it provides us the ―form‖ or
―framework‖ of the moral theory. Formal moral theory does not give us a list of
rules or commands. Instead, it gives us a set of instructions on how to make a list
of duties or moral commands.
to provide the ―form‖ of moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria fro
determining, on one’s own, the rules and moral commands.
Example : Cook Book, because it gives the instructions on how to cook
certain dishes, but not given the actual food.
The difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

 The hypothetical imperative: Immanuel Kant observed that the word

´ought´is often used non-morally, for example ´if you want to become
a better artist or guitarist, you ought to practice´; ´if you want to get
an A in Ethics you ought to study hard´. We have a certain wish and
recognizing that a certain course of action would help us to fulfil this
wish, we follow this course of action. Kant called this the hypothetical
imperative; telling us what we OUGHT to do if we want to fulfil our
wishes.
 The categorical imperative: In contrast Kant observed that moral
obligations do not depend on particular wishes or desires. The form of a
moral obligation is not ´if you want something, you ought to do so and
so. Instead, moral requirements are categorical, that is ´you ought to
do so and so regardless of your particular wishes or desires.
 So a categorical imperative is the moral obligation to act in a certain way.

But how are categorical imperatives to be known?

In any moral dilemma Kant stresses that the right way to act is known to us.
Our thinking (reason) as long as it is not corrupted will always light the path we
’ought’ to follow in order to be morally virtuous. Kant stated that by applying the
principle of universalization categorical imperatives are known. By applying this
formula morality becomes as self evident as the stars above. we all have the
ability to know what categorical imperatives we ´ought´ to obey as we all have the
ability to reason. Reason enables us to determine the difference between
´right´and ´wrong´ by applying what Kant called the principle of
universalization.

‖So only those actions that conform to rules that could be

adopted by all people at all times are moral.‖
4 Key Elements
Actions Maxims
Will Universal Law
 Kant states that we must formulate an action as a maxim,
which he defines as a ‖subjective principle of action.‖
 A maxim consists of a ―rule‖ that we live by in our day-to-
day lives, but it does not have the status of a law or moral
command that binds us to act in a certain way. Rather, it
depicts the pattern of our behavior. Thus, maxims are akin
to the ―standard operating procedures‖ (SOPs) in our
lives.
 Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not
tied to any particular conditions, including the identity and desires of the
person making the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must imply absolute
necessity, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular
physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any
rational being. This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative,
sometimes called the "universalizability principle"

"Act as if the maxims of your action were to

become through your will a universal law of
nature."
According to Kant, our universality revolves around two
types of duties
 On this basis, Kant derives the second formulation of the categorical imperative from the
first. By combining this formulation with the first, we learn that a person has perfect
duty not to use the humanity of themselves or others merely as a means to some other
end. As a slave owner would be effectively asserting a moral right to own a person as a
slave, they would be asserting a property right in another person. This would violate the
categorical imperative, because it denies the basis for there to be free rational action at
all; it denies the status of a person as an end in themselves. One cannot, on Kant's account,
ever suppose a right to treat another person as a mere means to an end. In the case of a
slave owner, the slaves are being used to cultivate the owner's fields (the slaves acting as
the means) to ensure a sufficient harvest (the end goal of the owner).

―Act in such a way that you treat humanity,

whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never merely as a means to an
end, but always at the same time as an end.‖
 Kant claims that the first formulation lays out the objective conditions on the
categorical imperative: that it be universal in form and thus capable of becoming a law
of nature. Likewise, the second formulation lays out subjective conditions: that there
be certain ends in themselves, namely rational beings as such. The result of these two
considerations is that we must will maxims that can be at the same time universal, but
which do not infringe on the freedom of ourselves nor of others. This leads to the
concept of self-legislation. Each subject must through his own use of reason will
maxims which have the form of universality, but do not impinge on the freedom of
others: thus each subject must will maxims that could be universally self-legislated.
This third formulation makes it clear that the categorical imperative requires
autonomy. It is not enough that the right conduct be followed, but that one also
demands that conduct of oneself.
―Thus the third practical principle follows [from the
first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony
with practical reason: the idea of the will of every
rational being as a universally legislating will.‖
 In general, The Categorical Imperative is a rule for testing rules.
Basically it requires the following steps:
 Before you act, consider the maxim or principle on which you are
acting.
 Generalize that principle.
 PERFORM TEST ONE.
If, once generalized, it no longer makes any sense because it
contradicts itself, then it is wrong to use that maxim as a basis for
action.
 IF NECESSARY PERFORM TEST TWO (aka Reversibility)
If the generalized version makes sense, then ask whether you would
choose to live in a world where it was followed by everyone. If not, do
not act on that maxim.
 Kant's example of a false promise (Using Test One)
Maxim: I may make a false promise in order to reap financial gain.
Generalized: Anyone may make a false promise to get something s/he wants.
This is self-contradictory because:
If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody would take a promise seriously;
promising becomes meaningless.
Result: I may not act on that maxim.

 The maxim fails Test One.

 Similar reasoning leads Kant to conclude that any maxim permitting theft or
lying must be rejected.
 A thief's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the institution of
property, but unless the institution of property exists, there can be no theft.
 A liar's maxim, once generalized, would overturn the assumption of
truthfulness, but without this assumption, no lie can even be attempted.
 Kant's example of the Bad Samaritan (Using Tests One and Two)

Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot

pay me even though I could do so at little cost to myself.
Generalized: Anyone may refuse to help another person in distress
who cannot pay her even though it would cost her little to help.
Can it be conceived? Yes.
Could you will this to be a universal law? Probably not, because you
might find yourself in a situation of extreme need and nobody else
would help you.
Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan" maxim.
 One of the biggest criticisms of Kantian ethics is that it
discounts outcome as a valid factor in evaluating the morality of
an action. While it is not necessarily wise to rely solely on outcome
(as in utilitarianism/consequentialism), it is not a good idea to
completely ignore the outcome altogether. Based on Kant’s formula of
humanity, human life is sacred and inviolable, meaning one cannot
enslave a few people even if it would enable more people to lead better
lives. Killing one person to save the lives of millions is impermissible in
Kantian ethics.
At times Kantian moral duty seems to contradict our natural
inclinations and common sense. If we obey the moral law rather than
our intuitions, we are acting morally. Deontological ethics is weaker
when it comes to informing us how to live well or developing virtues of
character.
For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and
learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that
might start a war. You can hack the network and
cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional
code of ethics to break into any software system
without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and
cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule.
However, in letting the missile launch, thousands of
people will die.
 Kant says that only one [kind of] thing is inherently good, and that
is the good will.
The will must:
 found in humans but not nonhuman animals
 not a material thing
 it is our power of rational moral choice
 its presence gives humans their inherent dignity
 What makes the will good? The will is good when it acts out of
duty, not out of inclination.
 What does it mean to act out of inclination? To do something
because it makes you feel good or because you hope to gain
something from it.
 What does it mean to act out of duty? Kant says this means that
we should act from respect for the moral law.
 How do we do that? We must know what the moral law is.
 Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow
the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with
our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.
 Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results,
deontology doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a
situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you
only have to follow set rules.
 Obeying the rules for self-interest, because it will lead to better
consequences or even because it makes us happy is not, for
deontologists, an ethical reason for acting. We should be
motivated by our respect for the moral law itself.
 Deontologists require us to follow universal rules we give to
ourselves. These rules must be in accordance with reason – in
particular, they must be logically consistent and not give rise to
contradictions.
Presented by:
AGRAVIADOR, KERVY JAY T.
BSMT 2-C
PRESENTED TO:
PROF. CECILIO ESONA
Ethics Professor