RS: A2: Ethics: Ethical Theory: Deontology

Strengths of deontology

Motivation is valued over consequences, which are beyond our control. An immoral motive cannot be justified by unforeseen good consequences but a good motive is worthy of value.

It is a humanitarian principle in which all men are considered to be of equal value and worthy of protection.

Justice is always an absolute, even if the majority of people do not benefit.

It recognises the value of moral absolutes that do not change with time or culture. There must surely be some things which are beyond fad or fashion.

It provides objective guidelines for making moral decisions, without the need for lengthy calculation of possible outcomes.

Weaknesses of deontology Moral obligations appear arbitrary or inexplicable except by reference to

duty. In reality our decision-making is influences by many more factors and it is indeed questionable whether duty is as good a motive as Kant suggested.

How far can good will or motive mitigate a disastrous outcome? Further, are we really concerned to know the form of moral behaviour (e.g. duty) or do we want to know more about its content? Are we satisfied with being told ‘do your duty’ without understanding why?

When taken to its logical extreme the principle of universalisability is absurd. Not all things if universalised would be moral: e.g. ‘every person wearing black shoes should tie the left lace first’ or ‘all girls with red hair should wear green on Thursdays’ could be universalised but that does not make them moral commands. Furthermore, it is possible to invite a maxim which can be simply universalised without contradiction, but which would involve an arguably immoral action e.g. ‘Do not break promises, except to man named James’. Thus, anything could technically be universalised and so the principle is exposed to a reduction ad absurdum. ‘All men called Joe who are unemployed should rob a bank on Tuesday’ is in theory universalisable but clearly fails Kant’s test in all other ways.

RS: A2: Ethics: Ethical Theory: Deontology

Kant argues that what is good to do is what we ought to do and that what is inherently good and intrinsically right is the way in which we ought to behave for the mutual good of all, irrespective of consequences. In this respect, critics of Kant have accused him of committing the Naturalistic Fallacy – of turning an ‘is’ into an ‘ought.’

Whilst Kant’s approach avoids the problems of emotivism- that all moral behaviour is the outcome of our personal preferences- it may go too far in the other direction, since he makes no allowance for compassion or sympathy to motivate our actions. How people feel about morality is genuinely important and surely morality should have some connection with what actually happens as well as with what may be formally universally universalised? Real morality arises out of real experience.

There are potentially no limits to what can reasonably be universalised. Although it may seem absurd to argue that ‘commit suicide’ should be seen as a categorical imperative, to a chronically depressed person it may be perfectly reasonable.