Deontology is a moral theory that evaluates actions based on duties and obligations. It is most closely associated with Immanuel Kant, who believed that humans have a rational will and the ability to act according to rational principles they determine for themselves. For Kant, the only truly good actions are those done out of duty, in accordance with his categorical imperative which holds that moral rules must be universalizable and not bring about logical contradictions if applied universally.

1. DEONTOLOGY
M a e s t r a A l y s s a M a r i e Q u e r i m i t
G E C 2 I n s t r u c t o r
Ly c e u m - N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y

2. FR
DEONTOLOGY
the moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because
of duty.
2
• comes from the Greek word ‘deon’, which means “being necessary”. Hence,
deontology refers to the study of duty and obligation.
• The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He was a German
Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on moral
philosophy, Groundwork towards a Metaphysic of Morals (1785).
• In this work, Kant suggests that we, human beings, have the faculty inherent mental
capacity called rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that
we determine for ourselves.

3. FR
DEONTOLOGY
3
• Rational will -The objective principle of volition is a principle that regulates every
rational will.
- humans have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing.
When humans practice rational will and conceive ways to act according to certain rational
principles:
Example: Nena is tired, but instead of sleeping, she tries to remain up and study more in order
to prepare for a test. To remain awake and continue studying, she drinks coffee, exercises, and
listens to upbeat music.

4. FR
DUTY & AGENCY
4
In the previous example, rational will won in staying awake over bodily impulses to
just go to sleep. This further explains the meaning of the rational will, the capacity of a
person to be the cause of his/her actions based on reasons not merely to mindlessly
react to the environment and base impulses. In philosophical discussions about
human freedom, this capacity is called agency, which is the ability of a person to act
based on his/her intentions and mental states.
In the previous example, Nena’s duty is to pass the quiz/exam which is part of a bigger
goal/principle which is to earn her degree. Nena reacted according to her rational will
– to stay awake and study more. She determined that it was her duty to stay awake
and study more because her rational will had conceived such a duty.

5. FR
Autonomy vs Heteronomy
5
Autonomy: autos nomos, “self” “law”. Self-law or self-legislating
Heteronomy: heteros nomos, “other” “law” or Other law.
Children (unaware of the principle of maintaining oral hygiene) brushing their teeth according to
parent’s law/rules by using threats or incentives:
“Hey Ryan, go brush your teeth now or else your teeth will rot!”
“Come on now, Liza, if you brush your teeth in five minutes, I will let you play your computer game
tonight”.
In the case of Ryan and Liza, they are not autonomous because they are only following the law of
others (their parents) and the principle of maintaining oral hygiene is imposed upon the two children
by using threats or incentives.

6. FR
Universalizability
6
Categorical Imperative- provides a procedural way of identifying the rightness or
wrongness of an action.
There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative, namely: (1) action, (2)
maxim, (3) will, and (4) universal law.
Kant states that we must formulate an action as a maxim, which he defines as a “subjective principle of
action”. In this context, a maxim consists of a “rule” that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it does
not have the status of a law or a moral command that binds us to act in a certain way.
Maxims depict the patterns of our behavior. Thus, maxims are a kin to the “standard operating
procedures” (SOPs) in our lives. We act according to a variety of maxims, even if we are not aware of
them.

7. FR
Universalizability
7
Example:
You forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning. You do not have time to go get it
between classes, and you are really hungry. You notice that the student working the
snack kiosk in the union is engrossed in a conversation, and you could easily snag a
banana and be on your way. Is it okay, morally, for you to do this?
The particular action you are considering which is taking a banana from a merchant
without paying for it is stealing. And if you approve the maxim of stealing, whether
you admit it or not, then what you are actually doing is universalizing that action. You
are saying that “everyone should steal”. If you should be able to do it, then – everyone
should be able to do it.

8. FR
Universalizability
8
This leads to a contradiction. Kant says that moral actions cannot bring about
contradictions. The contradiction here is: no one would say that everyone should steal
all the time. Because if everyone should always steal, then you should steal the
banana. And then I should steal it back from you, and then you should steal it back
from me, and it would never end and no one would ever get to eat any banana.
Therefore, stealing is not universalizable and is rationally impermissible. So what
Kant’s really saying is that it is not fair to make exceptions for yourself. You do not
really think stealing is ok, and by imagining what it would be like to universalize it, that
becomes clear.