Deontology

— Claudio Toro 2010/11/19 20:16

We all talk about what is right or wrong. Some think about why is it that way, or how it should be instead. Following said train of thought, philosophers from different eras have come up with different theories and genealogies. From these ideas emerge ideologies like utilitarianism, the Aristotelian virtue ethics, and deontology. This essay will try to give a short introduction to the latter one, explaining its basis and its most famous proponents.

The cornerstone of deontology (from the Greek “deon” , which means duty or obligation) is that deciding upon what is right or not for any situation should be based on a preconceived set of rules and our duty to follow them, disregarding any possible consequences. Many of us abide to a set of regulations which we try not to betray, like for example “do not lie.” However, this maxim is often twisted by the moral agent to fit the current situation. A deontologist would not do that. If I were to subscribe to the deontological doctrine, my rule (in this case “do not lie”) would be constant and invariable, applying it by the letter in every context.

It is easy to see that this view on morality is absolutist, leaving no space for exceptions, and it is this feature that makes this theory as old as human history: “when the word of the chief, or the king, or God, was given unconditionally and without invitation to appeal on the basis of consequences”1).

But deontology is not a one-way-only approach to moral obligations. The theory is actually commonly divided in two subsections: Act deontology and rule deontology.

Act Deontology

Act deontologists believe that there is no such thing as a global set of rules by which we should guide our actions. Instead, they speculate that for each situation there are many possible outcomes that would be favorable. Such idea comes from the general conception that humans and situations cannot be generalized, therefore making strict principles very unfitting. Because rulings and standards cannot be applied to any moral context, act deontologists can also be called “intuitionists”2). More specifically, calling the theory intuitionist means that each decision is based on a “gut feeling” of sorts (notice that consequences do not have a role in these intuitions).

Criticisms to Act Deontology
Some problems with this deontological subdivision include that it does not provide any balancing measurement. In other words: it does not provide any guidelines for discerning if one individual’s idea of what is right is better than any others. Furthermore, some individuals might tend to act in socially unacceptable ways just because they had a feeling that they were doing the right thing. Also, if we were to adapt to an act-deontological system, our actions as a society could be reinforced by each other’s hunches, but they could still be rationally unacceptable.

Rule Deontology

On the other side of the coin we find rule deontology, whose proponents theorize that there are, in fact, definite rules by which we should subscribe in order to be good and to act well. Any rule, of course, would be independent of any consideration for the consequences of our actions. This type of deontology is probably the most well-known, and the only ground in which we find discrepancies among its subscribers is on how we generate these axiomatic rules. The determination of what principles should be counted as invariable rules in deontology can follow three different paths: the divine command theory, Kant’s duty ethics, and Ross’ prima facie duties.

Divine Command Theory
The divine command theory, as its name cues, asserts that any moral rule must come from a supernatural being, presupposing that said being is all-good and that it knows what the best course of action is. An example of this idea is the Ten Commandments. However, problems arise as soon as we start digging into this way of thinking morality. First comes the lack of rational proof for and all-good supernatural being (that’s why we talk in general about faith and not facts). Following this obstacle is the objection that even if we could prove such a being is out there, we would still face the need of being able to trust its commands. Moreover, even if we could fully trust this supernatural being, there is always the uncertainty of the interpretation of the rules it provides. (as it often happens with the Ten Commandments)

The Kantian Way
The second way of discovering a basic set of principles comes from Kant. According to him, any specific rule could be applied in a way which would not credit its agent as good. For him only a good will can be counted as good 3). In other words: even if we do the right thing, we would not be considered completely good unless our primary motivation–or intention–was based on good will, and not consequences or inclinations. However, good will alone will not solve our dilemma, so Kant adds reason as a second vital factor of his moral theory: If we are to find universal maxims, we can do so only by use of our reason. In this Kant differs from act deontologists, who, as mentioned before, only rely on their instincts and deem this kind of reason as not applicable to ethics4).

The usage of reason brings us to what Kant calls the categorical imperative. In short, this imperative is a rule of thumb by which, upon deciding whether to act in a certain way or not, we ask ourselves whether our actions could be turned into a universal law. So, if I want to rob a bank whenever I feel like doing so, I should first ask myself “should everyone else rob a bank whenever they feel like it?” If the answer is no, then I should act accordingly. Because of the categorical imperative, we are on our own when we decide, and “to recognize this, which Kant calls the autonomy of the moral agent, is to recognize also that external authority, even if divine, can provide no criterion for morality”5). Kant aims a direct hit at the divine command theory. Also, we have to keep in mind that for Kant people should always be counted as ends, and never as means for anything.

Criticisms to Kantian Ethics

Of course, Kant’s procedure is not flawless, and despite its evident influence it has not lived without criticisms. For example, once again deontology has left us without any criteria for choosing the best option out of two conflicting imperatives. Also, as seen before, Kant explains that a good moral action is the one that goes against inclination in order to fulfill a certain duty (for instance, a person with the inclination to kill will not do it because it is his duty not to). Following duties and regulations, then, makes us free from the oppression of inclinations. But what about when we find inclinations that also count as duties? If the man from the previous example actually felt inclined to not kill people at all, and also acknowledges that not killing people is his duty: would he be less moral because he’s acting upon inclination? More objections follow, as it could be expected, but for now these two suffice for our current purpose.

Ross and the Prima Facie Duties
Another important advocate of the deontological doctrine is W.D. Ross. An important introductory note is that, even though he didn’t think consequences determine an action’s moral value, “it is necessary to consider consequences when we are making our moral choices”6). Ross’ theory is better known as the “prima facie duties”. These duties are primordial rules for action, but they can be changed due to exceptional circumstances, which is an improvement from Kant’s absolutism. Another improvement is that Ross actually attempts to give us a method for deciding which prima facie duty is more important, something that, as we already saw, is uncommon in deontological ideologies.

Ross distinguished many duties, but some of the most important are:

Fidelity (always tell the truth)
Reparation (repair wrong acts done to others)
Gratitude
Justice
Beneficence (helping others improve in the way they live)
Self-improvement, and
Nonmaleficence
Whenever one or more of these duties conflict, Ross tells us that we should follow the following criteria: 1) Act in accord with the stronger prima facie duty, and 2) Follow the option that has a bigger level of prima facie rightness over prima facie wrongness7).

Objections to Ross

The problem, though, is that there is no guideline to decide which duty has a greater level of rightness or wrongness. Moreover, Ross still leaves a gap when it comes to choosing prima facie duties in general. He would say that all humans know by heart what action has the quality of a prima facie duty, but then we face the same problems that we saw before in the intuitionist act deontological approach.