DEONTOLOGY.pptx

It is presentation about deontology.

1. DEONTOLOGY

2. After discussing this chapter, you should be able to: Recognize what is the theory of Deontology; 2. Identify the the main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant

3. Deontology is a moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of duty. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty ( deon ) which means ―being necessary‖ and science (or study) of (logos).

4. Hence, deontology refers to the study of duty and obligation. In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted.

5. 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). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to consequentialists. The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

6. People are also rational. Rationality consists of mental faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings.

7. This is the capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus we have the ability to stop and think about wat we are doing.

8. We can remove ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such actions affect the world. We can imagine a different and better world, and create mental images of how we interact with other people in that world.

9. An architect ―first construct blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that construction is drawn, you can then give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual house, which becomes the second construction. This happens often in our live such as when a young girl puts on her nice dress and makeup, when a student writes the outline for an English essay, or when a painter makes initial sketches on a canvass.

10. The first construction consists in how we imagine things can be, then we implement that in the second construction. Through the capacity for imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly even change, the world we live in.

11. Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine and construct mental images, but we also have the ability to act onto enact and make real -those mental images. This ability to enact our thoughts is the basis for the rational will. The rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. As far as we know, animals only act according to impulses, based on their instincts.

12. Animals ―act: with immediacy with nothing that intervenes between the impulse and action. They do not and cannot deliberate on their actions. In fact, we may say that animals do not ―act. They only react to their external surroundings and internal impulses.

13. We human have reason, which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing to evaluate our actions according to principles.

14. Humans are not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of ways to act according to certain rational principles.

15. Example: You fell too tired; your head feels heavy and sleepy. The impulse is to close your eyes and then fall asleep. But your rational will demand something else. Maybe because you have to finish reading this module for a quiz tomorrow.

16. The quiz serve as your formation as a student to earn degree and productive work. So you struggle to stay awake: you stand up briefly to stretch your legs. You may have already taken some coffee as you struggle to stay awake and understand the words on this page , your rational will is victorious over your bodily impulses as long as you stay wake.

17. This demonstrates the triumph of your rational will cover your base impulse to go to sleep. This triumph clarifies the meaning of rational will, the capacity of a person to be the cause of her action based on reasons and not merely to mindlessly react to the environment and base impulses.

18. In Philosophical discussions about human freedom, this capacity is called agency , which is the ability of a person to act based on her intentions and mental states.

19. Duty is specifically human experience. Animals do not possess the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of having duties. This is the starting point of Deontology. As long as we can have rationality, there will always be the tension between our base impulses and our rational will.

20. Universalizability, to figure out how the faculty of reason can be cause of an autonomous action, we need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the will. But before explaining this procedure, it will be helpful to first make a distinction about kinds of moral theories namely, substantive, and formal moral theories .

21. A substantive moral theory promulgates the specific action that comprises that theory. It identifies the particular duties in the straightforward manner that the adherents of the theory follow.

22. While formal moral theory does not supply the rules or command in straightway. It does not tell you what you may or may do. Instead a formal moral theory provides us the form or the framework of the moral theory. To provide a form of moral theory is to supply a procedure and criteria for determining one‘s own rule and moral commands.

23. Kant's improvement on the golden rule, the Categorical Imperative: Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people. Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law

24. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the ―Categorical Imperative‖ (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality.

25. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality the CI is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant‘s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‗slave‘ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect

26. Kant‘s most influential positions in moral philosophy are found in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter, ―Groundwork‖) but he developed, enriched, and in some cases modified those views in later works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well as his essays on history and related topics. Kant‘s Lectures on Ethics, which were lecture notes taken by three of his students on the courses he gave in moral philosophy, also include relevant material for understanding his views. W

27. We will mainly focus on the foundational doctrines of the Groundwork, even though in recent years some scholars have become dissatisfied with this standard approach to Kant‘s views and have turned their attention to the later works. We find the standard approach most illuminating, though we will highlight important positions from the later works where needed.

28. Kant‘s ethics is based on his distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. He called any action based on desires a hypothetical imperative, meaning by this that it is a command of reason that applies only if one desires the goal in question.

29. For example, ―Be honest, so that people will think well of you!‖ is an imperative that applies only if one wishes to be thought well of. A similarly hypothetical analysis can be given of the imperatives suggested by, say, Shaftesbury‘s ethics: ―Help those in distress, if you sympathize with their sufferings!‖ In contrast to such approaches, Kant said that the commands of morality must be categorical imperatives: they must apply to all rational beings, regardless of their wants and feelings.

30. To most philosophers this poses an insuperable problem: a moral law that applied to all rational beings, irrespective of their personal wants and desires, could have no specific goals or aims, because all such aims would have to be based on someone‘s wants or desires. It took Kant‘s peculiar genius to seize upon precisely this implication, which to others would have refuted his claims, and to use it to derive the nature of the moral law. Because nothing else but reason is left to determine the content of the moral law, the only form this law can take is the universal principle of reason.

31. Thus, the supreme formal principle of Kant‘s ethics is: ―Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.‖

32. Kant still faced two major problems. First, he had to explain how one can be moved by reason alone to act in accordance with this supreme moral law; and, second, he had to show that this principle is able to provide practical guidance in one‘s choices. If one combines Hume‘s theory that reason is always the slave of the passions with Kant‘s denial of moral worth to all actions motivated by desires, the outcome would be that no actions can have moral worth.

33. To avoid such moral skepticism, Kant maintained that reason alone can lead to action without the support of desire. Of course, the fact that the alternative leads to so unpalatable a conclusion may be in itself a powerful incentive to believe that somehow a categorical imperative is possible, but this consideration would not be convincing to anyone not already committed to Kant‘s view of moral worth.

34. At one point Kant appeared to take a different line. He wrote that the moral law inevitably produces a feeling of reverence or awe. If he meant to say that this feeling then becomes the motivation for obedience, however, he was conceding Hume‘s point that reason alone is powerless to bring about action. It would also be difficult to accept that anything, even the moral law, can necessarily produce a certain kind of feeling in all rational beings regardless of their psychological constitution. Thus, this approach does not succeed in clarifying Kant‘s position or rendering it plausible.

35. Kant gave closer attention to the problem of how his supreme formal principle of morality can provide guidance in concrete situations. One of his examples is as follows. Suppose that a person plans to get some money by promising to pay it back, though he has no intention of keeping his promise. The maxim of such an action might be: ―Make false promises when it suits you to do so.‖ Could such a maxim be a universal law?

36. Of course not. The maxim is self-defeating, because if promises were so easily broken, no one would rely on them, and the practice of making promises would cease. For this reason, the moral law would not allow one to carry out such a plan.

37. Not all situations are so easily decided, however. Another of Kant‘s examples deals with aiding those in distress. Suppose a person sees someone in distress, which he could easily help, but refuses to do so. Could a person‘s will as a universal law the maxim that one should refuse assistance to those in distress? Unlike the case of promising, there is no strict inconsistency in this maxim‘s being a universal law.

38. Kant, however, says that one cannot will it to be such, because one may someday be in distress oneself, and in that case one would want assistance from others. This type of example is less convincing than the previous one. If the person in question values self-sufficiency so highly that he would rather remain in distress than escape from it through the intervention of another, then Kant‘s principle would not require him to assist those in distress.

39. In effect, Kant‘s supreme principle of practical reason can tell one what to do only in those special cases in which willing the maxim of one‘s action to be a universal law yields a contradiction. Outside this limited range, the moral law that was to apply to all rational beings regardless of their wants and desires cannot provide guidance except by appealing to wants and desires.

40. Kant does offer alternative formulations of the categorical imperative, one of which appears to provide more substantial guidance than the formulation considered thus far. This formulation is: ―So act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means.‖

41. The connection between this formulation and the first one is not entirely clear, but the idea seems to be that, in choosing for oneself, one treats oneself as an end; if, therefore, in accordance with the principle of universal law, one must choose so that all could choose similarly, one must treat everyone else as an end as well.

42. Even if this is valid, however, the application of the principle raises further questions. What is it to treat someone merely as a means? Using a person as a slave is an obvious example; Kant, like Bentham, was making a stand against this kind of inequality while it still flourished as an institution in some parts of the world.

43. But to condemn slavery one needs only to give equal weight to the interests of slaves, as utilitarians such as Bentham explicitly did. One may wonder, then, whether Kant‘s principle offers any advantage over utilitarianism. Modern Kantians hold that it does, because they interpret it as denying the legitimacy of sacrificing the rights of one human being in order to benefit others.

44. One thing that can be said confidently is that Kant was firmly opposed to the utilitarian principle of judging every action by its consequences. His ethics is a deontology (see deontological ethics). In other words, the rightness of an action, according to Kant, depends not on its consequences but on whether it accords with a moral rule, one that can be willed to be a universal law.

45. In one essay Kant went so far as to say that it would be wrong for a person to tell a lie even to a would-be murderer who came to his house seeking to kill an innocent person hidden inside. This kind of situation illustrates how difficult it is to remain a strict deontologist when principles may clash. Apparently Kant believed that his principle of universal law required that one never tell lies, but it could also be argued that his principle of treating everyone as an end would necessitate doing everything possible to save the life of an innocent person.

46. END OF SLIDES THANK YOU FOR LISTENING