It is presentation about deontology.

1. DEONTOLOGY

2. After discussing this chapter, you
should be able to:
1.Recognize what is the theory of
Deontology;
2. Identify the the main proponent
of deontology is Immanuel Kant

3. Deontology is a moral theory that
evaluates actions that are done
because of duty. The word deontology
derives from the Greek words for duty
(deon) which means ―being
necessary‖ and science (or study) of
(logos).

4. Hence, deontology refers to the
study of duty and obligation. In
contemporary moral philosophy,
deontology is one of those kinds of
normative theories regarding which
choices are morally required,
forbidden, or permitted.

5. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of
moral theories that guide and assess our choices of
what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast
to those that guide and assess what kind of person
we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And
within the domain of moral theories that assess our
choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to
deontological theories of morality—stand in
opposition to consequentialists. The main proponent
of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

9. People are also
rational. Rationality
consists of mental
faculty to construct
ideas and thoughts
that are beyond our
immediate
surroundings.

10. This is the capacity for
mental abstraction,
which arises from the
operations of the
faculty of reason. Thus
we have the ability to
stop and think about
wat we are doing.

12. We can remove ourselves mentally from
the immediacy of our surroundings and
reflect on our actions and how such actions
affect the world. We can imagine a different
and better world, and create mental images
of how we interact with other people in
that world.

13. An architect ―first construct blueprint of a
house in her mind. When the draft of that
construction is drawn, you can then give
instructions to masons and carpenters on how
to build the actual house, which becomes the
second construction. This happens often in our
live such as when a young girl puts on her nice
dress and makeup, when a student writes the
outline for an English essay, or when a painter
makes initial sketches on a canvass.

14. The first construction consists in how
we imagine things can be, then we
implement that in the second
construction. Through the capacity
for imagination and reflection, we
conceive of how we could affect,
possibly even change, the world we
live in.

15. Thus, we do not only have the capacity to
imagine and construct mental images, but we
also have the ability to act onto enact and make
real -those mental images. This ability to enact
our thoughts is the basis for the rational will. The
rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in
the world, to act in a manner that is consistent
with our reason. As far as we know, animals only
act according to impulses, based on their
instincts.

16. Animals ―act: with
immediacy with nothing
that intervenes between
the impulse and action.
They do not and cannot
deliberate on their actions.
In fact, we may say that
animals do not ―act. They
only react to their external
surroundings and internal
impulses.

17. We human have reason,
which intervenes
between impulse and
act. We have the ability
to stop and think about
what we are doing to
evaluate our actions
according to principles.

18. Humans are not only
reacting to our surroundings
and internal impulses, but
are also conceiving of ways
to act according to certain
rational principles.

20. Example: You fell too tired; your
head feels heavy and sleepy. The
impulse is to close your eyes and
then fall asleep. But your rational will
demand something else. Maybe
because you have to finish reading
this module for a quiz tomorrow.

21. The quiz serve as your formation as a
student to earn degree and productive
work. So you struggle to stay awake: you
stand up briefly to stretch your legs. You
may have already taken some coffee as
you struggle to stay awake and
understand the words on this page , your
rational will is victorious over your bodily
impulses as long as you stay wake.

22. This demonstrates the
triumph of your rational
will cover your base
impulse to go to sleep.
This triumph clarifies the
meaning of rational will,
the capacity of a person to
be the cause of her action
based on reasons and not
merely to mindlessly react
to the environment and
base impulses.

23. In Philosophical discussions
about human freedom, this
capacity is called agency,
which is the ability of a
person to act based on her
intentions and mental states.

24. Duty is specifically human experience.
Animals do not possess the faculty of
rational will, cannot conceive of having
duties. This is the starting point of
Deontology. As long as we can have
rationality, there will always be the
tension between our base impulses and
our rational will.

25. Universalizability, to figure out how the
faculty of reason can be cause of an
autonomous action, we need to learn a
method or a specific procedure that will
demonstrate autonomy of the will. But
before explaining this procedure, it will be
helpful to first make a distinction about
kinds of moral theories namely,
substantive, and formal moral theories.

26. A substantive moral theory
promulgates the specific action
that comprises that theory. It
identifies the particular duties in
the straightforward manner that
the adherents of the theory
follow.

27. While formal moral theory does not supply
the rules or command in straightway. It
does not tell you what you may or may do.
Instead a formal moral theory provides us
the form or the framework of the moral
theory. To provide a form of moral theory
is to supply a procedure and criteria for
determining one‘s own rule and moral
commands.

28.  Kant's improvement on the golden rule, the Categorical Imperative: Act as you
would want all other people to act towards all other people. Act according to the
maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a
universal law

29.  Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a
standard of rationality that he dubbed the ―Categorical Imperative‖ (CI). Kant
characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional
principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we
may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are
justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational
because they violate the CI. Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and
Aquinas, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of
rationality.

30.  This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be
regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that
binds it. The fundamental principle of morality the CI is none other than the law of
an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant‘s moral philosophy is a conception
of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean
‗slave‘ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in
each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as
possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect

31.  Kant‘s most influential positions in moral philosophy are found in The Groundwork
of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter, ―Groundwork‖) but he developed,
enriched, and in some cases modified those views in later works such as The
Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a
Pragmatic Point of View, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well as
his essays on history and related topics. Kant‘s Lectures on Ethics, which were
lecture notes taken by three of his students on the courses he gave in moral
philosophy, also include relevant material for understanding his views. W

32.  We will mainly focus on the foundational doctrines of the Groundwork, even
though in recent years some scholars have become dissatisfied with this standard
approach to Kant‘s views and have turned their attention to the later works. We
find the standard approach most illuminating, though we will highlight important
positions from the later works where needed.

33.  Kant‘s ethics is based on his distinction between hypothetical and categorical
imperatives. He called any action based on desires a hypothetical imperative,
meaning by this that it is a command of reason that applies only if one desires the
goal in question.

34.  For example, ―Be honest, so that people will think well of you!‖ is an imperative
that applies only if one wishes to be thought well of. A similarly hypothetical
analysis can be given of the imperatives suggested by, say, Shaftesbury‘s ethics:
―Help those in distress, if you sympathize with their sufferings!‖ In contrast to
such approaches, Kant said that the commands of morality must be categorical
imperatives: they must apply to all rational beings, regardless of their wants and
feelings.

36.  To most philosophers this poses an insuperable problem: a moral law that applied
to all rational beings, irrespective of their personal wants and desires, could have
no specific goals or aims, because all such aims would have to be based on
someone‘s wants or desires. It took Kant‘s peculiar genius to seize upon precisely
this implication, which to others would have refuted his claims, and to use it to
derive the nature of the moral law. Because nothing else but reason is left to
determine the content of the moral law, the only form this law can take is the
universal principle of reason.

37.  Thus, the supreme formal principle of Kant‘s ethics is: ―Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.‖

38.  Kant still faced two major problems. First, he had to explain how one can be moved
by reason alone to act in accordance with this supreme moral law; and, second, he
had to show that this principle is able to provide practical guidance in one‘s
choices. If one combines Hume‘s theory that reason is always the slave of the
passions with Kant‘s denial of moral worth to all actions motivated by desires, the
outcome would be that no actions can have moral worth.

39.  To avoid such moral skepticism, Kant maintained that reason alone can lead to action without the
support of desire. Of course, the fact that the alternative leads to so unpalatable a conclusion may
be in itself a powerful incentive to believe that somehow a categorical imperative is possible, but
this consideration would not be convincing to anyone not already committed to Kant‘s view of
moral worth.

40.  At one point Kant appeared to take a different line. He wrote that the moral law
inevitably produces a feeling of reverence or awe. If he meant to say that this
feeling then becomes the motivation for obedience, however, he was conceding
Hume‘s point that reason alone is powerless to bring about action. It would also be
difficult to accept that anything, even the moral law, can necessarily produce a
certain kind of feeling in all rational beings regardless of their psychological
constitution. Thus, this approach does not succeed in clarifying Kant‘s position or
rendering it plausible.

41.  Kant gave closer attention to the problem of how his supreme formal principle of
morality can provide guidance in concrete situations.
 One of his examples is as follows. Suppose that a person plans to get some money
by promising to pay it back, though he has no intention of keeping his promise.
The maxim of such an action might be: ―Make false promises when it suits you to
do so.‖ Could such a maxim be a universal law?

42.  Of course not. The maxim is self-defeating, because if promises were so easily
broken, no one would rely on them, and the practice of making promises would
cease. For this reason, the moral law would not allow one to carry out such a plan.

43.  Not all situations are so easily decided, however. Another of Kant‘s examples deals
with aiding those in distress. Suppose a person sees someone in distress, which he
could easily help, but refuses to do so. Could a person‘s will as a universal law the
maxim that one should refuse assistance to those in distress? Unlike the case of
promising, there is no strict inconsistency in this maxim‘s being a universal law.

44.  Kant, however, says that one cannot will it to be such, because one may someday
be in distress oneself, and in that case one would want assistance from others. This
type of example is less convincing than the previous one. If the person in question
values self-sufficiency so highly that he would rather remain in distress than escape
from it through the intervention of another, then Kant‘s principle would not require
him to assist those in distress.

45.  In effect, Kant‘s supreme principle of practical reason can tell one what to do only
in those special cases in which willing the maxim of one‘s action to be a universal
law yields a contradiction. Outside this limited range, the moral law that was to
apply to all rational beings regardless of their wants and desires cannot provide
guidance except by appealing to wants and desires.

46.  Kant does offer alternative formulations of the categorical imperative, one of which
appears to provide more substantial guidance than the formulation considered
thus far. This formulation is: ―So act that you treat humanity in your own person
and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never
merely as means.‖

47.  The connection between this formulation and the first one is not entirely clear, but
the idea seems to be that, in choosing for oneself, one treats oneself as an end; if,
therefore, in accordance with the principle of universal law, one must choose so
that all could choose similarly, one must treat everyone else as an end as well.

48.  Even if this is valid, however, the application of the principle raises further
questions. What is it to treat someone merely as a means? Using a person as a
slave is an obvious example; Kant, like Bentham, was making a stand against this
kind of inequality while it still flourished as an institution in some parts of the
world.

49.  But to condemn slavery one needs only to give equal weight to the interests of
slaves, as utilitarians such as Bentham explicitly did. One may wonder, then,
whether Kant‘s principle offers any advantage over utilitarianism. Modern Kantians
hold that it does, because they interpret it as denying the legitimacy of sacrificing
the rights of one human being in order to benefit others.

50.  One thing that can be said confidently is that Kant was firmly opposed to the
utilitarian principle of judging every action by its consequences. His ethics is a
deontology (see deontological ethics). In other words, the rightness of an action,
according to Kant, depends not on its consequences but on whether it accords with
a moral rule, one that can be willed to be a universal law.

51.  In one essay Kant went so far as to say that it would be wrong for a person to tell a
lie even to a would-be murderer who came to his house seeking to kill an innocent
person hidden inside. This kind of situation illustrates how difficult it is to remain a
strict deontologist when principles may clash. Apparently Kant believed that his
principle of universal law required that one never tell lies, but it could also be
argued that his principle of treating everyone as an end would necessitate doing
everything possible to save the life of an innocent person.

52.  END OF SLIDES
 THANK YOU FOR LISTENING