Video Case Study

12/28/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5835051934529006900868413293&eISBN=9781337614467&id=1034289154&nbId… 1/3

6-2c Deontology

Deontology (Refers to moral philosophies that focus on the rights of individuals and the intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than its consequences) (from the Greek word for “ethics”) refers to moral philosophies that focus on the rights of individuals and the intentions associated with a particular behavior rather than its consequences. Fundamental to deontological theory is the idea that equal respect must be given to all persons. Unlike utilitarians, deontologists argue that there are some things we should not do, even to maximize utility. For example, deontologists would consider it wrong to kill an innocent person or commit a serious injustice against someone, no matter how much greater social utility might result from doing so, because such an action would infringe on individual rights. The utilitarian, however, might consider an action resulting in a person’s death acceptable if that action leads to some greater benefit. Deontological philosophies regard certain behaviors as inherently right, and the determination of this Tightness focuses on the individual actor, not on society. Therefore, these perspectives are sometimes referred to as nonconsequentialism (Regard for certain behaviors as inherently right, and the determination of this rightness focuses on the individual actor, not on society) , a system of ethics based on respect for persons.

Contemporary deontology has been greatly influenced by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who developed the so-called categorical imperative (If you feel comfortable allowing everyone in the world to see you commit an act and if your rationale for acting in a particular manner is suitable to become a universal principle guiding behavior, then committing that act is ethical) : “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.” Simply put, if you feel comfortable allowing everyone in the world to see you commit an act and if your rationale for acting in a particular manner is suitable to become a universal principle guiding behavior, then committing that act is ethical. People who borrow money and promise to return it with no intention of keeping that promise cannot “universalize” their act. If everyone borrowed money without the intention of returning it, no one would take such promises seriously, and all lending would cease. The rationale for the action would not be a suitable universal principle, and the act could not be considered ethical.

The term nature is crucial for deontologists. In general, deontologists regard the nature of moral principles as permanent and stable, and they believe compliance with these principles define ethicalness. Deontologists believe individuals have certain absolute rights, including freedom of conscience, freedom of consent, freedom of privacy, freedom of speech, and due process.

To decide if a behavior is ethical, deontologists look for conformity to moral principles. For example, if a manufacturing worker becomes ill or dies as a result of conditions in the

12/28/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5835051934529006900868413293&eISBN=9781337614467&id=1034289154&nbId… 2/3

workplace, a deontologist might argue that the company must modify its production processes to correct the condition, no matter what the cost—even if it means bankrupting the company and thus causing all workers to lose their jobs. In contrast, a utilitarian would analyze all the costs and benefits of modifying production processes and make a decision on that basis. This example is greatly oversimplified, of course, but it helps to clarify the difference between teleology and deontology. In short, teleological philosophies consider the ends associated with an action, whereas deontological philosophies consider the means.

Returning again to our bolt salesperson, let’s consider a deontological Sam Colt. He would probably feel obligated to tell the bridge contractor about the defect rate because of the potential loss of life that might result from an earthquake-caused bridge collapse. Even though constructing the bridge would benefit residents and earn Sam a substantial commission, the failure of the bolts during an earthquake would infringe on the rights of any person crossing the bridge at the time of the collapse. Thus, the deontological Sam would likely inform the bridge contractor about the defect rate and point out the earthquake risk, even though he would probably lose the sale as a result.

As with utilitarians, deontologists may be divided into those who focus on moral rules and those who focus on the nature of the acts themselves. Rule deontologists (Conformity to general moral principles based on logic determines ethicalness) believe conformity to general moral principles based on logic determines ethicalness. Examples include Kant’s categorical imperative and the Golden Rule of the Judeo-Christian tradition: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Such rules, or principles, guiding ethical behavior override the imperatives that emerge from a specific context. One could argue that Jeffery Wigand—who exposed the underside of the tobacco industry when he blew the whistle on his employer, Brown & Williamson Tobacco—was such a rule deontologist. Although it cost him financially and socially, Wigand testified to Congress about the realities of marketing cigarettes and their effects on society.

Rule deontology is determined by the relationship between the basic rights of the individual and a set of rules governing conduct. For example, a video store owner accused of distributing obscene materials could argue from a rule deontological perspective that the basic right to freedom of speech overrides the indecent or pornographic aspects of his business. Indeed, the free-speech argument has held up in many U.S. courts. Kant and rule deontologists would support a process of discovery to identify the moral issues relevant to a firm’s mission and objectives. Then they would follow a process of justifying that mission or those objectives based on rules. An example of a rule deontologist might be Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos. When one of Zappos’ websites, called 6pm.com, malfunctioned—causing all items to be priced at $49.95 for six hours—Zappos honored all the orders made during this time period. The company lost approximately $1.6 million from the technical glitch but valued its relationships with customers as more important. This fits with Zappos’ philosophy of delivering “WOW through service.”

Act deontologists (Hold that actions are the proper basis to judge morality or ethicalness) , in contrast, hold that actions are the proper basis to judge morality or ethicalness. Act

12/28/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5835051934529006900868413293&eISBN=9781337614467&id=1034289154&nbId… 3/3

deontology requires a person use equity, fairness, and impartiality when making and enforcing decisions. For act deontologists, past experiences are more important than rules; rules serve only as guidelines in the decision making process. In effect, act deontologists suggest people simply know that certain acts are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. In addition, act deontologists consider the unique characteristics of a particular act or moment in time as taking precedence over any rule. For example, many people view data collection by Internet sites as a violation of personal privacy; regardless of any website’s stated rules or policies, many Internet users want to be left alone unless they provide permission to be tracked while online. Privacy has become such an issue that the government is considering regulation to protect online users. Research suggests that rule and act deontological principles play a larger role in a person’s decision than teleological philosophies.

As we have seen, ethical issues can be evaluated from many different perspectives. Each type of philosophy discussed here provides a clear basis for deciding whether a particular action was right or wrong. Adherents of different personal moral philosophies may disagree in their evaluations of a given action, yet all are behaving ethically according to their own standards. The relativist perspective may be helpful in understanding how people make such decisions in practice.

© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.