Deontological philosophies Deontological ethics

1 deontological philosophies

1.1 kantianism
1.2 moral absolutism
1.3 divine command theory
1.4 contemporary deontology

deontological philosophies

there numerous formulations of deontological ethics.

kantianism

immanuel kant

immanuel kant s theory of ethics considered deontological several different reasons. first, kant argues act in morally right way, people must act duty (deon). second, kant argued not consequences of actions make them right or wrong motives of person carries out action.

kant s argument act in morally right way 1 must act purely duty begins argument highest must both in , without qualification. in when intrinsically good, , without qualification , when addition of thing never makes situation ethically worse. kant argues things thought good, such intelligence, perseverance , pleasure, fail either intrinsically or without qualification. pleasure, example, appears not without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching suffer, seems make situation ethically worse. concludes there 1 thing good:

nothing in world—indeed nothing beyond world—can possibly conceived called without qualification except will.

kant argues consequences of act of willing cannot used determine person has will; consequences arise accident action motivated desire cause harm innocent person, , bad consequences arise action well-motivated. instead, claims, person has when acts out of respect moral law . people act out of respect moral law when act in way because have duty so. so, thing in will, , when willer chooses because person s duty, i.e. out of respect law. defines respect concept of worth thwarts self-love .

kant s 3 significant formulations of categorical imperative are:

act according maxim can become universal law.
act in such way treat humanity, whether in own person or in person of other, never means, @ same time end.
every rational being must act if through maxim legislating member in universal kingdom of ends.

moral absolutism





(learn how , when remove template message)

some deontologists moral absolutists, believing actions absolutely right or wrong, regardless of intentions of moral agent or resultant consequences. immanuel kant, example, argued absolutely thing will, , single determining factor of whether action morally right will, or motive of person doing it. if acting on bad maxim, e.g. lie , action wrong, if consequences come of it.

divine command theory

although not deontologists religious, believe in divine command theory . divine command theory cluster of related theories state action right if god has decreed right. william of ockham, rené descartes , eighteenth-century calvinists accepted versions of moral theory, according ralph cudworth, held moral obligations arise god s commands. divine command theory form of deontology because, according it, rightness of action depends upon action being performed because duty, not because of consequences arising action. if god commands people not work on sabbath, people act rightly if not work on sabbath because god has commanded not so. if not work on sabbath because lazy, action not speaking right , though actual physical action performed same. if god commands not covet neighbour s goods, theory holds immoral so, if coveting provides beneficial outcome of drive succeed or well.

one thing distinguishes kantian deontologism divine command deontology kantianism maintains man, rational being, makes moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains god makes moral law universal.

contemporary deontology

contemporary deontologists include thomas nagel, thomas scanlon, roger scruton , frances kamm.

frances kamm s principle of permissible harm effort derive deontological constraint coheres our considered case judgments while relying heavily on kant s categorical imperative. principle states 1 may harm in order save more if , if harm effect or aspect of greater itself. principle meant address kamm feels people s considered case judgments, many of involve deontological intuitions. instance, kamm argues believe impermissible kill 1 person harvest organs in order save lives of 5 others. yet, think morally permissible divert runaway trolley otherwise kill 5 innocent , immobile people onto side track 1 innocent , immobile person killed. kamm believes principle of permissible harm explains moral difference between these , other cases, , more importantly expresses constraint telling when may not act bring ends—such in organ harvesting case. in 2007, kamm published book presents new theory incorporates aspects of principle of permissible harm , doctrine of productive purity . principle of permissible harm , doctrine of productive purity attempt provide deontological prescription determining circumstances in people permitted act in way harms others.

attempts have been made reconcile deontology virtue-based ethics , consequentialism. iain king s 2008 book how make decisions , right time uses quasi-realism , modified form of utilitarianism develop deontological principles compatible ethics based on virtues , consequences. king develops hierarchy of principles link meta-ethics, more inclined towards consequentialism, deontological conclusions presents in book.