philosophy ( ethics )- Homework

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: AN ANALYSIS Chapter Seven: H o w S h o u l d W e L i v e ?

Normative theories: As noted in the teleological ethics notes, there are two main varieties of normative theory, teleological and deontological. The main difference lies in how these two normative theories determine which acts are right, and which are wrong. In general, the distinction is the following:

• Teleological: the value of an act, and therefore its rightness or wrongness, are functions of the consequences or outcomes of the act. In other words, the act is the right one if it brings about valuable consequences, where there can be variation about what is valuable.

• Deontological: the value of an act, and therefore its rightness or wrongness, are function of the act itself or the type of act. There is something in the nature of the act, or of kinds of acts, that determine their value. Some acts are of high value, and ethical, whereas others are of no or negative value, and are unethical, or wrong.

Deontology in general: Deontology in general focuses on acts themselves, and derives from a consideration of the acts or kinds of acts that are valuable a set of rules that persons should adhere to. There are varieties of deontological theory that do not derive rules for action-guidance, but for the most part deontological theories are rule based. There are several different distinctions that one can draw between different types of deontologists:

• Act vs. rule: act based deontology tends to argue that we have intuition that can discover the right act in each instance. Rule based theories base morality on a set of finite rules that are derived through consideration of the nature of acts or types of acts.

• Objective vs. absolute: the objectivist holds that there are objectively valid moral principles, but they are not universally binding. In other words, the objective principles might be subject to violation if there is a more important duty to act according to. The absolutist rejects the idea that principles can be overridden by other principles, and holds that they are universally binding, in that they should never, in any circumstances, be violated.

• Intuitionism vs. rationalism: the intuitionist and the rationalist differ on their ideas about

what capacity is related to morality. The intuitionist holds that intuition is responsible for knowledge of moral duties, and that it is through having intuitions, or internal perceptions, that we come to know the duties are regulating principles. The rationalist thinks morality is a matter of reason. Through reflection and the use of reason we come to know moral principles that regulate action.

To understand how a deontologist would reason, consider the following example from the book: you are a surgeon in a hospital who has the chance to save five patients in the ICU by taking the life of a patient who has walked in for a trivial injury. While the teleological ethicist would consider the consequences of killing the man with the small injury, and the impact it might have on the patients in the ICU, the deontologist considers the act of killing itself. If the consequences of killing the one patient to save the five are more valuable than not doing so, you are justified in killing the patient.

2

The deontologist objects to this on the grounds that there is something negative about the nature of killing, and the action should be avoided. Intuitionist Deontology: The main variety of intuitionism comes from W.D. Ross. Ross was an intuitionist about moral principles and duties. He believed that it was through intuition that we come to know a finite set of moral principles, and through intuition that we determine which duties are the ones we should act on in particular situations where it appears several might conflict. There are a couple of essential points to note about Ross’s theory:

• Rule-based: the principles that make up morality are a finite set of rules or duties that are used in specific situations. There is a plural set of rules that are not regulating by a single, overarching principle.

• Intuitionist: the principles are self-evident. They cannot be proven, but are evident to any

person on reflection.

• Objective: the principles are not absolute. Each principle in the finite set can be overriding in particular circumstances by any other principle in the set.

Ross has a system in which the nature of morality is as described above. He states that there is a finite set of duties that are prima facie, or self-evident. When we find ourselves in a situation where a duty is relevant, the duty will be self-evident. If I am in a situation in which there is the consideration of harming someone, the duty to prevent harm is self-evident. Through experience we come to have full knowledge of the finite set of duties, and how to properly apply them. The application is not just a matter of experience though. Intuition also guides us in times of moral conflict by helping us to determine which duty out of a relevant set is the one that should be acted on. Ross further draws a distinction between the prima facie, or self-evident, duties, and actual duties:

• Prima facie duties: these are the duties that will be self-evident in a given moral situation. When we find ourselves in a situation, a prima facie duty, or multiple prima facie duties will become evident through reflection. When one of these is seen as the overriding duty, it becomes ones actual duty. A prima facie duty in not necessarily an actual duty, it depends on the situation.

• Actual duties: this is the duty that is ultimately chosen by intuition and acted on. When a duty is determined to be the most significant and is acted on it goes from being a prima facie duty to an actual duty.

Rationalist Deontology: Immanuel Kant is the main rationalist to focus on. Although both him and Ross are deontologists, and have rule-based theories, they differ in two other important respects. Below is a brief look at the main components of Kant’s theory:

• Rule-based: Like Ross, Kant holds that there is a finite set of principles, related to duties, which should guide our action. No matter the situation, there will be a rule that determines what the right thing to do in the situation is. These rules are going to be derived based on the

3

values that different acts have, rather than based on the consequences associated with different kinds of acts.

• Absolutist: The principles, or duties, that are derived within the Kantian system are not subject to violation, no matter the circumstances. While for Ross it is possible for one duty oriented principle to be overridden by another, this is never the case for Kant. All principles are universally binding, and it is never the case that they can be violated, no matter the situation one finds oneself in.

• Rationalist: Kant takes reason, rather than intuition, to be the capacity that tied intimately to

morality. It is through reason that we generate the true and valid moral principles, and through reason alone that we come to learn their validity and application. For Kant, reason alone can establish moral principles that are universally binding and necessary.

Kant’s line of reasoning and the derivation of his moral system are difficult to follow, but the general idea can be summed up in the following steps:

1. Morality has intrinsic value: This is the starting place for Kant’s theory. He held that morality has intrinsic value, or is valuable in itself. This is contrasted with the utilitarian, who held that morality and the value of acts is related to their consequences, or is instrumentally valuable for bringing about pleasure.

a. From the idea that morality is intrinsically valuable we get two additional claims: that a morally valuable act is one in which the motivation is to do duty for duty’s sake, and the claim that rationality is intrinsically valuable.

b. This also leads to the rejection of moral principles being in the form of hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative treats acts as instrumentally valuable, whereas with categorical imperatives they are treated as being valuable for themselves.

2. Morality is a feature of reason: As already noted, Kant is a rationalist. He sees reason as being

intimately tied up with morality. Moral principles are derived from reason, and through reason we have knowledge of them. In this case, Kant is treated reasons, and rational creatures as intrinsically valuable as well. Therefore, humans, as rational creatures, have intrinsic value, as does reason as a capacity. This component of Kant’s theory comes up in his formulations of the categorical imperative.

3. Categorical principles: Kant derives three main principles, known as the three different

formulations of categorical imperative, that he thinks are valid and can be obviously demonstrated as true given rational reflection. He introduces three formulation of the categorical imperative that all acts need to satisfy in order to be morally permissible.

a. Test of universality (first formulation): at only according to that maxims that can be willed as a universal law. (This formulation makes universality a necessary component of moral duties.)

b. Kingdom of ends (second formulation): act always to treat humanity as an end in itself, and never as a means. (This formulation establishes the intrinsic value of humanity.)

4

c. Respect for autonomy (third formulation): every rational being can regard oneself as a maker of universal law. (This is in virtue of being rational and autonomous, and established the intrinsic value in Kant’s theory of autonomy.)

With the three above formulations, the first is the most important, and according to Kant, the only test needed to determine whether an act is morally permissible. However, due to some of the issues that come up with making only the first formulation the condition for moral permissibility, Pojman suggests adding the second formulation as an additional test for those that pass the first.

The reasoning that Kant thinks is required of the moral agent is complex and lengthy. An individual must be compelled to do the act for the sake of the duty that relates to it. Any other reason, according to Kant, fails to be a matter of good will, and is not morally worthy. In addition to one’s actions being a result of the good will alone, Kant also believes that on must engage in a lengthy process to determine their duties in particular situations. The process consists in the following steps:

• Isolate the act under consideration. • Develop a maxim around the act under consideration. • Universalize the maxim. • Determine if it results in a contradiction.

If it is determined that an act results in a logical contradiction, then it is not morally permissible. If it passes the test of the first formulation, it is permissible. In Kant’s original moral work, he treats a couple of different acts to his first formulation, which results in a distinct between acts that are perfect duties, and acts that are imperfect duties. The difference can be captured in the following manner:

• Perfect duty: These are the duties that are basically black and white. In other words, it is obvious that one need to abide by these duties to the fullest extent, there is no variability in the degree to which the duty need to be upheld.

• Imperfect duty: Here, there is some variable with respect to the extent that the duty need to be upheld. One of the examples from Kant is the duty to develop one’s talents. This is an imperfect duty because each of us has talents we are required to develop, given it is a duty, but the extent of the development is up to us. In other words, there is variability in the degree to which we act on the duty.

Problems for Kant: There are three main issues that come up for Kant, all related to the first formulation of his categorical imperative. These three issues can be summarized in the following ways:

• Triviality: There are certain trivial maxims that pass the first formulation. For example, “tie your left shoe before your right shoe,” is a maxim that will pass Kant’s test of universality because it does not result in a logical contradiction. But, it seems silly to think of this trivial principle as an actual universal law that regulated behavior.

5

• Absolutism: Kant is absolutist about the principle, or laws, that are derived from his system. This means that the principles are universally binding. So, even when it might be the case that lying can save a life, Kant tells us that this is not morally permissible. The absolutism seems to make it such that certain acts that are intuitively morally permissible are always wrong, such as the act of lying to save a life.

• Horrendous acts: It is possible, given that we focus our maxim on certain particulars, to

justify certain horrendous acts, like killing Americans. This is because the maxims that are constructed with specific references do not end up being logical contradictions. So, because Kant’s only test of universal law is the first formulation, it is possible to justify actions as universal law that are (intuitively) morally impermissible.

o One of the things Pojman attempts to do in order to help Kant here is to make the second formulation a necessary test as well. This is not originally what Kant intended though. It does, however, get around the above issue, because the second formulation would not allow and act like killing Americans because it treats humanity as a means, rather than as an end.

General Criticisms: There are three general criticism of deontological theory, two of which are put forth by the virtue ethics tradition. These three issues are summarized as follows:

• Emphasis on rationality: This is not a criticism of all deontology, but only those formulations that place a heavy emphasis on reason. Any theory that emphasizes reason as the basis for morality is going to exclude animals as subject to moral consideration, and the greater environment. Many people find this unacceptable, as we should include animals and the environment in our moral considerations.

• Lacks motivating features: Most deontological principles are formulated as negatives, “Do not X.” Virtue theory criticizes deontology for being overly negative in its prescriptions and therefore not motivating. Virtue theorists generally think that positive duties or moral considerations are more motivating, and this is lacking in deontology.

• Not spiritual: This is another criticism from the virtue theories, who holds that there is a

spiritual dimension to morality that is neglected by the deontologist who focuses not on the spiritual aspect of being a good person, but on the necessity of duty. According to virtue theory, there is something inherently spiritual about being a good person, and this is not something that a deontological view of morality can account for, given that they think only of being moral in terms of following rules.