1:06:46
PHI 240 (05) Deontology, part I
Ian Hegger
Overview
This lecture introduces deontology as an ethical system, contrasting it with utilitarianism. It explores the core idea of deontology as a rule-based or duty-based ethics, emphasizing obedience to moral duties. The video delves into various potential sources for these duties, including divine command, reason, nature, government, and social groups, before critiquing their sufficiency for establishing objective morality. It then focuses on Immanuel Kant's rational deontology, particularly his concept of the categorical imperative and the principle of universalizability, which posits that an action is immoral if its underlying maxim cannot be consistently willed as a universal law without contradiction.
How was this?
Save this permanently with flashcards, quizzes, and AI chat
Chapters
- Moral relativism suggests morality is subjective, but struggles with universally condemned actions like murder.
- Utilitarianism, previously discussed, posits that the right action maximizes overall good consequences.
- Different forms of utilitarianism exist, focusing on pleasure (Bentham), reflective satisfaction (Mill), or social progress (Machiavelli).
- Deontology, the focus of this lecture, is a rule-based or duty-based ethical system.
Understanding the limitations of relativism and utilitarianism motivates the exploration of alternative ethical frameworks like deontology, which offers a different approach to determining right and wrong.
The struggle to accept a society's decision that torturing babies for fun is acceptable highlights the desire for objective morality beyond mere cultural agreement.
- The classic trolley problem involves diverting a runaway train to kill one person instead of five.
- A variation, the 'fat man' scenario, requires pushing a large person off a bridge to stop the train and save five.
- Many people find diverting the train acceptable but pushing the man unacceptable, suggesting a moral difference beyond consequences.
- This intuition gap challenges utilitarianism, which focuses solely on outcomes, and supports the deontological idea that the *manner* of action matters.
The trolley problem and its variations reveal our intuitive moral distinctions between actions, suggesting that simply calculating outcomes might not align with our moral judgments.
The scenario where a train is heading towards five people, and the only way to stop it is by pushing a large man off a bridge to his death, which most people find morally impermissible.
- Deontology's chief goal is obedience to moral duties, requiring identification of these duties and their source.
- Potential sources for moral duties include God/gods, reason, nature, government, and social groups.
- Examples range from religious commandments (e.g., 'Thou shalt not murder') to governmental laws (e.g., speed limits) and social group rules (e.g., college attendance policies).
- Not all rules or duties derived from these sources are necessarily moral duties.
Identifying the potential origins of moral rules is crucial for deontology, as it seeks a foundation for these duties that can be universally applied.
Religious rules like 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife' from the Old Testament, or rules about appeasing a volcano god in ancient Aztec religion, are presented as examples of divine command sources for duties.
- Deontologists argue that mere customs, commands, traditions, inclinations, goals, and experiences are insufficient grounds for objective morality.
- Self-imposed rules, commands from bosses, family rules, or group decisions (like a church group voting to push the man) do not inherently justify an action as moral.
- Even government commands are not sufficient, as history shows governments can enact immoral laws (e.g., during slavery).
- Kantian deontology proposes using pure reason to identify universal moral laws, independent of empirical experience or consequences.
This section critically evaluates common sources of rules, demonstrating why they fall short of establishing objective morality and setting the stage for Kant's reliance on reason.
The argument that a boss telling you to push someone off a bridge, or a church group unanimously deciding to do so, does not make the action morally right, highlighting the inadequacy of external commands or group consensus.
- Kant's ethics are motivated by the belief in objectively true moral judgments, independent of circumstances or consequences.
- Actions like murder, rape, or torturing babies for fun are presented as examples of objectively wrong actions.
- The justification for these moral truths must come from reason, not empirical experience, as they cannot be 'discovered' in the world.
- Kant's solution is the Categorical Imperative, which states that an action is moral if its underlying maxim can be universalized without contradiction.
Kant's Categorical Imperative provides a rational framework for determining moral duties, moving beyond subjective feelings or outcomes to a principle of universal consistency.
The mathematical principle that all angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees is used as an analogy for a truth derived from reason, not empirical observation, similar to how Kant believes moral truths are derived.
- Universalizing a maxim means asking if it could consistently apply to everyone in all similar situations.
- If universalizing an action leads to a contradiction or makes the action itself impossible, it is immoral.
- This is because such an action is inconsistent with the necessary conditions for an agent to act rationally.
- Disagreements about morality often stem from confusing experience-based interpretations with pure rationality.
Understanding the principle of universalizability helps learners apply Kant's ethical test to their own actions and evaluate the moral permissibility of rules.
The example of saying '2+2=5' creates a contradiction because it violates the fundamental rules of arithmetic, illustrating how a maxim that leads to contradiction when universalized is morally impermissible.
Key takeaways
- Deontology prioritizes adherence to moral duties and rules over the consequences of actions.
- The trolley problem highlights the tension between consequentialist (utilitarian) and duty-based (deontological) ethical reasoning.
- Potential sources of moral duties (God, reason, nature, government, social groups) must be critically evaluated for their ability to ground objective morality.
- Kantian deontology relies on pure reason and the principle of universalizability to determine moral rightness.
- An action is considered immoral if its underlying maxim cannot be consistently applied as a universal law without leading to a contradiction or impossibility.
- Moral disagreements can arise from confusing personal experiences and biases with objective rational principles.
- The Categorical Imperative serves as a test for the moral permissibility of actions.
Key terms
DeontologyDuty-based ethicsRule-based ethicsTrolley problemFat man scenarioDivine command theoryReason (as a source of duty)Nature (as a source of duty)Government (as a source of duty)Social group (as a source of duty)Immanuel KantCategorical ImperativeUniversalizabilityMaximContradictionEmpirical experience
Test your understanding
- What is the fundamental difference between deontology and utilitarianism regarding the basis for moral action?
- Why does the 'fat man' variation of the trolley problem pose a challenge for utilitarianism that the original trolley problem might not?
- What are at least three potential sources of moral duties that deontologists consider, and why might they be insufficient on their own?
- How does Kant's concept of universalizability function as a test for determining whether an action is moral or immoral?
- What does it mean for a maxim to lead to a 'contradiction' or 'impossibility' in Kantian ethics, and how does this relate to moral judgment?