Download SEEING THE LIGHT

SEEING THE
LIGHT
DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS
(CH. 2.0)
© 2012. Wanda Teays. All rights reserved
DEONTOLOGICAL VS. TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
Teleological Ethics puts the emphasis on ends or
goals (consequences)
Deontological Ethics emphasizes duties or
intentions.

It approaches ethical decision‐making in terms of a moral
code or sense of duty to oneself and to others.

More stress is put on moral obligation than objectives and
on individual rights than societal benefits.
KANT’S DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS



Kantian Ethical theory centers on two principles
These are moral commands thought to apply to all rational
adults (= moral agents).
They are called categorical imperatives.

They do not admit of exception

(Think universal not particular—generalizing to all others).

For Deontological ethicists moral duty should light the way
in ethical decision‐making.
KANT
CON.
For Kant, children and incompetent adults are
not moral agents
 The Categorical Imperative only applies to
competent (rational) adults.

 Kant
says—try to universalize moral
decision‐making.
 Other (rational) moral agents should agree
with the decision; so it’s universal in scope
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
ASK:




What ought I do in the face of this ethical dilemma?
What is my duty?
What am I morally obligated to do?
What ethical guidelines should I follow?
DO NOT ASK:


What are the best goals I should set myself?
How can I maximize benefits?
CONTRASTS
Contrast with Teleological ethics, where the focus is on
consequences, end goals, results—THE FUTURE
Deontological ethicists see PRESENT duties as more
important than future consequences.


Teleological Ethicists focus on the future
(potential consequences/objectives),
Deontological ethicists focus on the present
(moral duties, intentions).
Neither emphasize THE PAST
MAJOR DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICISTS
Immanuel Kant—seeks to universalize ethical decisionmaking, so choose that course of action that we would
be willing to have all others follow our example.
Kant’s two principles:
Kant is famous for his two categorical imperatives
(moral commands that should apply to all rational moral
agents)

KANT’S FIRST PRINCIPLE
The Categorical Imperative
Choose that act that you would will to become a universal
law.
Ask yourself if you would have all others act the same in similar
circumstances. If so, that’s the right moral decision—if not,
stop right there! If you don’t want others to choose as you
would, then the decision is morally unacceptable.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Kant’s Categorical Imperative sees ethical
decision-making in terms of precedents,
—what we would willingly agree with others making the
same choice.
Choose that ethical decision as a rule
for all others to follow.
Think of yourself like a moral role model!
KANT’S SECOND PRINCIPLE
The Humanitarian Principle
Always treat others as an end in themselves, never merely as a
means.
In other words, treat others with respect and dignity and not use
them merely for some purpose.
THE HUMANITARIAN PRINCIPLE
Kant would oppose sacrificing individuals or a
minority of people for the benefit of the
majority, the society.
This contrasts with Utilitarians, who seek the
greatest happiness or good for the greatest
number of people—even if some are sacrificed
to accomplish this.
JOHN RAWLS:
ANOTHER DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICIST

John Rawls was greatly influenced by Kant’s emphasis on
moral duty.

Rawls sought to take Kantian ethics and put it to use to
create a better society—with institutions that were just, fair.

His focus: Justice as Fairness.
Goal: To restructure institutions so they are as just—fair—as
possible!

JOHN RAWLS (JUSTICE THEORY)
Rawls argued that we needed to be as free of
bias as possible.
Adopt
a “Veil of Ignorance”
Detach ourselves from the ways identify ourselves (and
our attachments) like race, class gender, religion,
political affiliations.
Goal: to be free of bias when we make policies
And ethical decisions.
RAWLS’ JUSTICE ETHICS

Rawls sought to have a just society—He set out three key
principles
Principle of Equal Liberty
Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive
system of liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty
for all.
RAWLS’ JUSTICE THEORY CON.
Principle of Equality of Fair Opportunity
People with similar abilities/skills should have
equal access to offices and positions under
conditions of equality of fair opportunity
.
.
RAWLS CON.
Difference principle
Social and economic institutions are to be
arranged to maximally benefit those who are the
worst off