AQA A Level Philosophy - Deontological Ethics

Describe what is mean by deontology (3)

Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty (deon (Greek) means 'one must'). We have moral duties to do things which it is right to do and moral duties not to do things which it is wrong to do.

Briefly Outline Deontological ethics (5)

1) Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty (deon (Greek) means 'one must').

2) We have moral duties to do things which it is right to do and moral duties not to do things which it is wrong to do.

3) Whether something is right or wrong doesn't depend on its consequences. Rather, it is something about any particular action that makes it right or wrong in itself.

4) In order to make moral decisions, we need to consider our duties.

Most deontological theories recognise two classes of duties:

- General duties we have towards anyone = respect and being kind to others.

- Specific duties we have because of our particular personal or social relationships= getting gifts for family or friends.

5) Deontology claims that we should each be most concerned with complying with our duties, not attempting to bring about the most good , instead, they claim there are times when we should not maximise the good, because doing so would be to violate a duty.

What is meant by a 'good will' (5)

1) Kant begins his argument by reflecting on whether anything is morally good 'without qualification'. Examples: Intelligence and self-control are good - but they can enable someone to do clever or difficult bad things, if that is what they choose.

2) Happiness isn't good without qualification. If someone is made happy by hurting others, their happiness is morally bad.

He argues that only the 'good will' is good 'without qualification'. Anything else can either be bad or contribute to what is bad.

3) What is good about the good will is not what it achieves. It doesn't derive its goodness from successfully producing some good result. Rather, it is good 'in itself'. If someone tries their hardest to do what is morally right but they don't succeed, then we should still praise their efforts as morally good.

4) A 'good will', is a will that intends and chooses what is right because it is right to do so. To do what is morally right because it is morally right is to act from the motive of duty.

5) The clearest case of being motivated by duty is when we do something we don't want to do, because we feel we ought to.

Describe how Kant explains the notion of acting from duty rather than in accordance with duty (5)

1) Kant gives the example of the honest grocer. He may be honest from the point of view of self-interest (egoism) in that his honesty brings in customers and helps him to profit. Alternatively he may be honest from natural inclination - he is just an honest fellow and being so just comes naturally to him - it is how he normally behaves. So, the honest grocer could act in accordance with duty, but without being motivated by duty. Kant thought that self - interest and natural inclination were not morally worthy motives, only duty was.

2) Acting from duty requires thinking rationally, eliminating any irrational thoughts which could cloud one's motive. Duty did not mean always acting against one's inclinations (eating salad when you prefer chips, walking on the railway line when you prefer walking on the pavement) but rather such inclinations should never form the basis of moral action. It must be duty if it is to have any moral worth.

3) Kant controversially claims that this applies just as much to doing good things for other people when that is what we want to do and enjoy doing. Doing good things for others is right and should be praised and encouraged, but these actions don't necessarily have moral worth.

4) If someone was to do something good for others even when they didn't want to, but just because they believe that it is the morally right thing to do, that would show that they have a good will.

5) So to have a good will is to do one's duty (what is morally right) because it is one's duty (because it is morally right).

Explain Kant's distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty (12)

Kant gives the example of the honest grocer. He may be honest from the point of view of self-interest (egoism) in that his honesty brings in customers and helps him to profit. Alternatively he may be honest from natural inclination - it is how he normally behaves. So, the honest grocer could act in accordance with duty, but without being motivated by duty. Kant thought that self - interest and natural inclination were not morally worthy motives, only duty was.

Acting from duty requires thinking rationally, eliminating any irrational thoughts which could cloud one's motive. Duty did not mean always acting against one's inclinations (eating salad when you prefer chips, walking on the railway line when you prefer walking on the pavement) but rather such inclinations should never form the basis of moral action. It must be duty if it is to have any moral worth. Kant claims that this applies just as much to doing good things for other people when that is what we want to do and enjoy doing. Doing good things for others is right and should be praised and encouraged, but these actions don't necessarily have moral worth. If someone was to do something good for others even when they didn't want to, but just because they believe that it is the morally right thing to do, that would show that they have a good will. So, to have a good will is to do one's duty (what is morally right) because it is one's duty (because it is morally right).

Kant asks us to consider someone who has no sympathy for the suffering of others and no inclination to help them. But despite this:

"...he nevertheless tears himself from his deadly insensibility and performs the action without any inclination at all, but solely from duty then for the first time his action has genuine moral worth." This person is acting out of duty and hence their action is moral.

We should ask whether an action of giving to others would have been performed even if the agent lacked the desire to do so. If the answer is "yes" then the act has moral worth. This though is consistent with the agent actually having those desires. The question for Kant is not whether an agent has desires but what moved the agent to act. If they acted because of those desires they acted in accordance with duty and their action had no moral worth. If they acted for the sake of duty, and just happened to have those desires, then their action has moral worth.

Define maxims (3)

Kant believed that, whenever we make a decisions, we act on a maxim. Maxims area 'plan of action'. They are our personal principles that guide our decisions, e.g. 'to have as much fun as possible', 'to marry only someone I truly love'. All our decisions have some maxim or other behind them.

Define Moral Rules (3)

Morality is a set of 'laws' - rules, principles - that are the same for everyone and that apply to everyone. If this is true, it must be possible that everyone could act morally (even if it is very unlikely that they will).

Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives (5)

1) An 'imperative' is just a command; it tell us what to do.

2) Kant distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical.

'Hypothetical imperatives' are statements about what you ought to do, on the assumption of some desire or goal. Hypothetical reasoning often involves the use of the words 'if' and 'then'.

3) For example:

If you want to get tickets to see the show, then you need to queue up early.

4) Hypothetical imperatives can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed desire or goal. Suppose I don't want to see the show - then I don't need to get to the theatre early. In other words, it is possible to 'opt out' of a hypothetical imperative.

5) This isn't true of morality; we usually think moral duties are not hypothetical. They are what we ought to do, full stop. They are your duty regardless of what you want. They are 'categorical'.

6) If a command is categorical then people ought to follow it irrespective of how they feel about following it, and irrespective of what consequences might follow.

Kant thinks that moral "oughts" — for example, "you ought not lie" — are categorical.

Explain Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives (12)

An 'imperative' is just a command; it tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical.

'Hypothetical imperatives' are statements about what you ought to do, on the assumption of some desire or goal. Hypothetical reasoning often involves the use of the words 'if' and 'then'. For example:

If you want to get tickets to see the show, then you need to queue up early. Hypothetical imperatives can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed desire or goal. Suppose I don't want to see the show - then I don't need to get to the theatre early. In other words, it is possible to 'opt out' of a hypothetical imperative.

This isn't true of morality; we usually think moral duties are not hypothetical. They are what we ought to do, full stop. They are your duty regardless of what you want. They are 'categorical'. If a command is categorical then people ought to follow it irrespective of how they feel about following it, and irrespective of what consequences might follow.

Kant thinks that moral "oughts" — for example, "you ought not lie" — are categorical. They apply to people irrespective of how they feel about them.

Kant has also argued that moral duties aren't a means to some further end, because what makes an action good is that it is willed by the good will. All categorical imperatives - our moral duties - are derived from one, the Categorical Imperative.

Briefly outline the first formulation of the categorical imperative (5)

1) 'Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'.

2) To 'universalise' a maxim is to consider if everyone could do it. If I act on a maxim that it is impossible for everyone to act on, I must be acting immorally - because it is always possible for everyone to act morally.

3) For example, suppose you want a gift to take to a party, but you can't afford it, so you steal it from the shop. Your maxim is something like: 'To steal something I want if I can't afford it'. This can only be the right thing to do if everyone could do it.

4) There are two different ways in which we could fail to be able to will our maxim to become universal: a contradiction of conception or if it is a contradiction in will.

5) A contradiction of conception is when a maxim is somehow against logic and is self-contradictory. If everyone acted on the following maxim, "Steal things when you want them", this would be contradictory as if we could all just help ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea of 'owning' things would disappear. But, by definition, you can't steal something unless it belongs to someone else.

6) A contradiction in will. This is when you desire to do your maxim to others but don't want it to happen back to you. Consider this maxim 'Don't help other people who are in need'. It is logically possible to universalize the maxim 'not to help others in need', however, Kant argues that we cannot behave this way because though we may not want to help others, we would still want others to help us. Since we do not desire everyone to act on this, it isn't universalisable.

Outline the first formulation of the categorical imperative (12)

The first formulation states the we should 'Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'. To 'universalise' a maxim is to consider if everyone could do it. If I act on a maxim that it is impossible for everyone to act on, I must be acting immorally - because it is always possible for everyone to act morally. For example, suppose you want a gift to take to a party, but you can't afford it, so you steal it from the shop. Your maxim is something like: 'To steal something I want if I can't afford it'. This can only be the right thing to do if everyone could do it.

There are two different ways in which we could fail to be able to will our maxim to become universal: a contradiction of conception or if it is a contradiction in will.

A contradiction of conception is when a maxim is somehow against logic and is self-contradictory. If everyone acted on the following maxim, "Steal things when you want them", this would be contradictory as if we could all just help ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea of 'owning' things would disappear. But, by definition, you can't steal something unless it belongs to someone else.

A contradiction in will. This is when you desire to do your maxim to others but don't want it to happen back to you. Consider this maxim 'Don't help other people who are in need'. It is logically possible to universalize the maxim 'not to help others in need', however, Kant argues that we cannot behave this way because though we may not want to help others, we would still want others to help us. Since we do not desire everyone to act on this, it isn't universalisable.

Outline how Kant argues that we cannot logically will that no one ever helps anyone else (3)

1. A will, by definition, wills its ends (goals).

2. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which it would be impossible for us to achieve our ends.

3. It is possible that the only available means to our ends, in some situations, involves the help of others.

4. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else.

Outline Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (5)

1) 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end'.

2) This emphasises respect for persons, who, unlike things, are never of instrumental value. They are of intrinsic value. This means that although people may be useful for us, they should never merely be treated as a 'means to an end', but should rather be 'ends in themselves'.

3) This means that people have intrinsic rights to respect and justice that cannot be taken away from them. According to Kant we have 'intrinsic worth', which Kant identifies as 'dignity'. What gives us this dignity is our rational (good) will. The will has unconditional value as the thing which gives value to everything else.

4) So in the second formulation above, by 'humanity', Kant means our ability to rationally determine which ends to adopt and pursue.

5) Kant says that people are ends in themselves, so we must always treat them as such and never 'simply' as a means. He does not say we cannot use people as a means, but that we can't use them only as a means. We rely on other people in many ways as means to achieve our own ends, e.g. people serving me in a shop are a means to getting what I want to buy. What is important, says Kant, is that I also respect them as an end.

Outline Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (12)

Kant's second formulation claims we should 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end'.

Humans are of intrinsic value. This means that although people may be useful for us, they should never merely be treated as a 'means to an end', but should rather be 'ends in themselves'. This means that people have intrinsic rights to respect and justice that cannot be taken away from them. According to Kant we have 'intrinsic worth', which Kant identifies as 'dignity'. What gives us this dignity is our rational (good) will. The will has unconditional value as the thing which gives value to everything else.

Kant says that people are ends in themselves, so we must always treat them as such and never 'simply' as a means. He does not say we cannot use people as a means, but that we can't use them only as a means. We rely on other people in many ways as means to achieve our own ends, e.g. people serving me in a shop are a means to getting what I want to buy. What is important is that I also respect them as an end.

To treat someone simply as a means, and not also as an end, is to treat the person in a way that undermines their power of making a rational choice themselves.

To treat people as an end we should appeal to other people's reason in discussing with them what to do, rather than manipulate them in ways that they are unaware of, through lying or coercing them. We should allow then to make an informed choice. If they are involved in our action in any way, they need to be able to agree to adopt our end as their own, or not to.

Treating someone as an end also means leaving them free to pursue the ends that they adopt. The value of what people choose to do lies in their ability to choose it, not just in what they have chosen. This is to respect their rationality.

Someone's being an end in themselves means that they are an end for others. We should adopt their ends as our own; we should help them pursue their ends, just as we pursue our own ends. In other words, the second formulation requires that we help other people. This should be one of our ends in life.

What does Kant claim about moral motivation (5)

1) Kant argues that there are, ultimately, only two sources of moral motivation: happiness and reason. But happiness can't be the basis of morality, for two reasons:

2) - What makes people happy differs from person to person, but morality is the same for everyone.

3) - Happiness is not always morally good. If someone is made happy by hurting others, this is no reason to say that it is morally good to hurt others. Their happiness is morally bad, so we evaluate happiness by morality. This means the standard of morality must be independent of happiness.

4) Since morality can't be based on happiness, then it must be based on reason and this is confirmed by the characteristics that morality and rationality share.

5) Morality is universal, the same for everyone; so is reason, says Kant.

6) Morality and rationality are categorical; the demands to be rational and moral don't stop applying to you even if you don't care about them. Neither morality nor rationality depend on what we want.

7) We intuitively think that morality applies to all and only rational beings, not just human beings. Morality doesn't apply to beings that can't make rational choices, such as dogs and cats.

Explain the issue of Kant's deontological ethics that: Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral (5)

1) Mill claims that when Kant attempts to deduce moral duties from the Categorical Imperative, he fails to show that there is any contradiction involved in being immoral.

2) Imagine an assassin who kills people for money. He knows that someday someone might be paid to kill him too but he accepts that possibility. The assassin kills others but accepts that this could happen to him too. Therefore, there is no contradiction in will.

3) It is also possible to word our maxims in such a way that they allow immoral actions that can be universalisable.

4) For instance, I could claim that my maxim is 'for people with seven letters in their name to steal red objects from large shops'. Universalizing this maxim, only people with seven letters in heir name would steal and only steal red objects and only from large shops.

5) The case would apply so rarely that there would be no general breakdown in the concept of private property. So, it would be perfectly possible for this law to apply to everyone.

6) Additionally, not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral. For example, the maxim to "always let others go out of the door first" could not be universalised because if everyone followed it, no one would be able to walk through doors as they would be waiting for others to go through first. But it is still generally considered a good thing to do so.

Outline the issue of Kant's deontological ethics of: clashing or competing duties (5)

1) We could have two duties which meet the requirements of the categorical imperative but appear to contradict each other.

2) For example, in Kant's famous example of the murderer at the door we can see two duties in apparent conflict: the duty to tell the truth and out duty to care for others. We cannot do both in this situation so it is not clear which duty we should follow.

3) Kant draws a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties:

Perfect duty: we are morally obliged to perform this all the time (eg, tell the truth).

Imperfect duty: it is good to do this but we are not morally obliged to do this all the time as it would be impossible (eg, help others in need).

4) In the example of the murderer at the door Kant would say that we should obey the perfect duty over the imperfect duty.

5) We may have a clash of perfect duties. in this scenario as we may have promised to protect the murderer's intended victim (promise keeping is a perfect duty) and we also have a duty to tell the truth (also a perfect duty).

Explain the issue of Kant's deontology that it Ignores consequences (5)

1) There is a strong intuition that consequences are important when it comes to moral decision making.

2) This intuition can be drawn out by considering ethical dilemmas such as the trolley problem:

3) Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no. But what about 100 people? Or the entire population of the world? Surely, if the consequences are significant enough we should consider breaking certain rules.

4) Another example is stealing. Kant says we have a perfect duty never to steal ever and so you should just let your family starve to death, if you cannot afford food - but this doesn't seem right.

5) Additionally, Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie - even if telling a lie would save someone's life, in the murderer at the door example. If the murderer asks where your friend is, it appears that Kant would claim that telling the murderer where your friend is, is morally right.

Outline the criticism of Kant's deontological ethics that it ignores other valuable motivations (5)

1) Kant argues that acting for the sake of duty is the source of moral worth. In other words, being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth.

2) So, imagine a close friend is ill in hospital. You pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they're ok.

3) According to Kant, this motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value.

4) However, if you didn't really care about your friend but begrudgingly went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant.

5) Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care.

Explain Foot's criticism of Kant's deontological ethics that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical (12)

Philippa Foot argues that moral laws are not categorical in the way Kant thinks - there is no categorical reason to follow them. Instead, she argues, morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are qualified by an 'if' statement, so you should do x if you want y ,whereas, categorical imperatives are not qualified by an 'if' statement, they apply universally. You should do x (all the time, whoever you are, without exception).

The motivation for hypothetical imperatives is obvious: I should do my homework because I want to do well in the exam. I should leave now because I want to catch the train on time. These desires provide a rational reason why I should act according to these imperatives. However, the reason for categorical imperatives is not so clear. Why shouldn't I steal? Why shouldn't I tell lies? If I don't care about these rules - if I have no desire to follow them - then why should I?

Kant would say following moral laws is a matter of rationality and that reason tells us we should follow the categorical imperative but Foot argues that: "The fact is that the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency. Nor will his action necessarily be irrational. Irrational actions are those in which a man in some way defeats his own purposes [...] Immorality does not necessarily involve any such thing."

In other words, there is nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place. The categorical imperative does not itself provide any rational reason to follow it. We might feel that there is some moral force that compels us not to steal or tell lies but this feeling is just that: a feeling. In reality, there is no real reason to follow moral laws.

Instead, Foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives. For example:

You shouldn't steal if you don't want to upset the person you're stealing from. You shouldn't tell lies if you care about having integrity. You shouldn't murder if you want to be a just and virtuous person.

Explain Foot's criticism of Kant's deontological ethics that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical (5)

1) Philippa Foot argues that moral laws are not categorical in the way Kant thinks - there is no categorical reason to follow them. Instead, she argues, morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.

2) Hypothetical imperatives are qualified by an 'if' statement, so you should do x if you want y ,whereas, categorical imperatives are not qualified by an 'if' statement, they apply universally. You should do x (all the time, whoever you are, without exception).

3) The motivation for hypothetical imperatives is clear as the desires provide a rational reason why I should act according to these imperatives. However, the reason for categorical imperatives is not so clear. As if I don't care about these moral laws - if I have no desire to follow them - then why should I?

4) Foot argues that: "The fact is that the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency. Nor will his action necessarily be irrational. Irrational actions are those in which a man in some way defeats his own purposes [...] Immorality does not necessarily involve any such thing."

5) So, there is nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place. The categorical imperative does not itself provide any rational reason to follow it.

6) Foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives. For example:

You shouldn't steal if you don't want to upset the person you're stealing from.