Unit 3: Deontological Ethics (Kant and Ross)

Deontological Ethics: Introduction
Kant: Good Will
Kant: Categorical Imperative
Kant: Duty for Duty's sake
W. D. Ross: Deontological Pluralism

Deontological Ethics: Introduction

Deontological Ethics comes from the Greek word deon, meaning "duty."

This is a non-consequentialist theory. It stands in direct opposition to Utilitarianism.

Core Principle: The morality of an action is based on the nature of the action itself (whether it follows a rule or "duty"), not on its consequences.

Certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the outcome.
Example: A deontologist would argue that lying is *always* wrong, even if it produces a good result (like saving someone's feelings).
The main proponent of this theory is Immanuel Kant.

Kant: Good Will

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) begins his ethics by looking for something that is unconditionally good.

He rejects happiness, intelligence, and courage as unconditionally good, because they can all be used for evil purposes (e.g., a happy, intelligent, courageous bank robber).

Kant's Famous Opening: "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will."

The Good Will is the "will to do good." It is the motive or intention to do the right thing simply *because* it is the right thing.
It "shines by its own light." Even if a good will fails to achieve its goals (e.g., you try to save a drowning person but fail), it is still good in itself.
For Kant, the consequences are morally irrelevant. Only the motive matters.

Kant: Categorical Imperative

If the Good Will is the *motive*, what is the *rule* it follows? Kant says the Good Will follows the Categorical Imperative. This is the supreme principle of morality.

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Hypothetical Imperative: A command that is conditional. It's an "if-then" statement.
- Example: "If you want to pass the exam, then you must study." (This doesn't apply to you if you don't care about the exam).
Categorical Imperative: An unconditional command. It applies to all rational beings, at all times, in all situations. It is a "must-do," period.
- Example: "You must not lie." (It doesn't say "if you don't want to get caught...").

Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Kant gives several formulations. The two most famous are:

The Formula of Universal Law:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
- In simple terms: "Before you act, ask what would happen if *everyone* acted this way?" If it leads to a contradiction, the act is immoral.
- Kant's Example: The Lying Promise. A man needs money. Can he promise to pay it back, even though he knows he can't?
  - Maxim: "When in need, I will make a false promise to get money."
  - Universalize: "Everyone in need will make false promises."
  - Contradiction: If everyone did this, the very institution of "promising" would collapse. No one would believe promises anymore. Therefore, the act is immoral.
The Formula of Humanity (or End-in-Itself):
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
- In simple terms: "Don't use people." All rational beings have intrinsic worth and dignity.
- Using someone "merely as a means" is to exploit or manipulate them (e.g., the lying promise uses the lender merely as a means to get money).

Kant: Duty for Duty's sake

This concept ties back to the Good Will. For an action to have moral worth, it must be done from duty, not just in accordance with duty.

Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who is honest with his customers.

Motive	Kant's Judgement
He is honest because he fears getting caught (bad reputation, legal trouble).	No Moral Worth. This is action in accordance with duty, but done from self-interest.
He is honest because he is naturally sympathetic and likes his customers.	No Moral Worth. This is also in accordance with duty, but done from inclination (emotion), not reason.
He is honest because he is a cold-hearted person who hates his customers, but he knows that honesty is the right thing to do.	This has Moral Worth. The action is done from duty, for duty's sake alone.

Key Point: Kant's ethics is based on reason, not emotion or consequence. The only moral motive is the rational respect for the moral law (the Categorical Imperative).

W. D. Ross: Deontological Pluralism

W. D. Ross (1877-1971) was a deontologist who felt Kant was too absolute. Kant's theory allows for *no exceptions* (e.g., you can't lie even to save a life). Ross found this problematic.

Deontological Pluralism

Ross argues that there is not just *one* supreme moral principle (like the Categorical Imperative), but a *plurality* (many) of them. He calls these Prima Facie Duties.

Prima Facie Duty: An "at first glance" duty. It is a moral obligation that is binding, *unless* it conflicts with a stronger moral obligation in a particular situation.

Ross's (non-exhaustive) list of Prima Facie Duties:

Fidelity: The duty to keep promises (and be truthful).
Reparation: The duty to make amends for a wrong we have done.
Gratitude: The duty to return favors.
Justice: The duty to distribute benefits and burdens fairly.
Beneficence: The duty to do good to others.
Non-maleficence: The duty to *not* harm others (often seen as stronger than beneficence).
Self-improvement: The duty to improve our own character and intellect.

Resolving Conflict

For Ross, moral dilemmas happen when these Prima Facie duties conflict.
Example: The classic "Inquiring Murderer." A murderer asks you where your friend is.

Kant: You must not lie. Your duty is absolute.
Ross: You have a conflict between two Prima Facie duties:
1. Duty of Fidelity (to tell the truth).
2. Duty of Non-maleficence (to not harm your friend).

In this case, Ross says we must use our moral intuition to determine our Actual Duty. It is "self-evident" that the duty of Non-maleficence is stronger, and therefore our *actual* duty in this situation is to lie.