Deontological philosophies
There are many formulations of deontological ethics.
Immanuel Kant's abstraction of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that in outline to act in the morally adjustment way, people must act from duty Pflicht. Second, Kant argued that it was non the consequences of actions that defecate them right or wrong, but the motives of the adult who carries out the action.
Kant's number one argument begins with the premise that the perseverance, and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically usefulness or advantage without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people cause pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one object that is truly good:
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification apart from a good will.
Kant then argues that the consequences of an act of willing cannot be used to defining that the grown-up has a good will; good consequences could arise by accident from an action that was motivated by a desire to cause destruction to an innocent person, and bad consequences could arise from an action that was well-motivated. Instead, he claims, a person has a good will when he "acts out of respect for the moral law." People "act out of respect for the moral law" when they act in some way because they have a duty to do so. Thus, the only object that is truly good in itself is a good will, and a good will is only good when the willer chooses to do something because it is for that person's duty, i.e. out of respect for the law. He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love."
Kant's three significant formulations of the categorical imperative are:
Kant argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. 'I will lie', then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it.
In his essay, "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns", arguing against the position of Benjamin Constant, Des réactions politiques, Kant states that:
Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional given that it must do damage to another, as jurists require in their definition mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius. For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very quotation of right [].… any practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth.… This is because such(a) exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles.
Although not all deontologists are religious, some believe in the divine predominance theory, which is actually a cluster of related theories that essentially state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right. According to English philosopher Ralph Cudworth, William of Ockham, René Descartes, and 18th-century Calvinists all accepted various list of paraphrases of this moral theory, as they all held that moral obligations arise from God's commands.
The divine direction theory is a form of deontology because, according to it, the rightness of any action depends upon that action being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people not to work on Sabbath, then people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not, truly speaking, "right" even though the actual physical action performed is the same. If God commands not to covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it would be immoral to do so, even if coveting enables the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or do well.
One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism supports that man, as a rational being, enables the moral law universal, whereas divine command submits that God makes the moral law universal.
prima facie duties imposing what is right.: xii Some duties originate from our own preceding actions, like the duty of fidelity to keep promises and to tell the truth, and the duty of reparation to make amends for wrongful acts. The duty of gratitude to return kindnesses received arises from the actions of others. Other duties add the duty of non-injury not to hurt others, the duty of beneficence to promote the maximum of aggregate good, the duty of self-improvement to upgrading one's own condition and the duty of justice to hand sth. out benefits and burdens equably.: 21–5 One problem the deontological pluralist has to face is that cases can arise where the demands of one duty violate another duty, call moral dilemmas. For example, there are cases where it is necessary to break a promise in outline to relieve someone's distress.: 28 Ross makes use of the distinction between prima facie duties and absolute duty to solve this problem.: 28 The duties remanded above are prima facie duties; they are general principles whose validity is self-evident to morally mature persons. They are factors that do not take all considerations into account. Absolute duty, on the other hand, is particular to one specific situation, taking everything into account, and has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is absolute duty that determines which acts are right or wrong.
Contemporary deontologists i.e., scholars born in the first half of the 20th century increase Józef Maria Bocheński, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Roger Scruton.
Bocheński 1965 makes a distinction between deontic and epistemic authority:
Scruton 2017, in his book On Human Nature, is critical of consequentialism and similar ethical theories, such(a) as hedonism and utilitarianism, instead proposing a deontological ethical approach. He implies that proportional duty and obligation are essential components of the ways in which we decide to act, and he defends natural law against opposing theories. He also expresses admiration for virtue ethics, and believes that the two ethical theories are not, as is frequently portrayed, mutually exclusive.
Frances Kamm's "Principle of Permissible Harm" 1996 is an effort to derive a deontological constraint that coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's categorical imperative. The principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This principle is meant to an essential or characteristic part of something abstract. of reference what Kamm feels are near people's considered case judgments, numerous of which involve deontological intuitions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of five others. Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would otherwise kill five innocent, immobile people, onto a sidetrack where only one innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us precisely when we may not act to bring approximately good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case.
In 2007, Kamm published Intricate Ethics, a book that gave a new theory, the "Doctrine of Productive Purity", that incorporates aspects of her "Principle of Permissible Harm". Like the "Principle", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity" is an attempt to manage a deontological prescription for determining the circumstances in which people are permitted to act in a way that harms others.
Various attempts have been portrayed to reconcile deontology with consequentialism. Threshold deontology holds that rules ought to govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross a stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over. Theories put forth by Thomas Nagel and Michael S. Moore attempt to reconcile deontology with consequentialism by assigning regarded and identified separately. a jurisdiction. Iain King's 2008 book How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time uses quasi-realism and a modified form of utilitarianism to develop deontological principles that are compatible with ethics based on virtues and consequences. King develops a hierarchy of principles to association his meta-ethics, which is more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he presents in his book.
Intuition-based deontology is a concept within secular ethics. A classical example of literature on secular ethics is the Kural text, authored by the ancient Tamil Indian philosopher Valluvar. It can be argued that some concepts from deontological ethics date back to this text. Concerning ethical intuitionism, 20th century philosopher C.D. Broad coined the term "deontological ethics" to refer to the normative doctrines associated with intuitionism, leaving the phrase "ethical intuitionism" free to refer to the epistemological doctrines.