Question

Explain deontology and the role of the categorical imperative in determining one’s ethical duty.

Illustrate your understanding of this ethical theory with a concrete example of an ethical dilemma.

Discuss an ethical theory that would take a different approach

Be sure to explain and discuss any key ideas with supporting citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. Use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources.

Answer 1

• Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions.
• Do the right thing.
• Do it because it's the right thing to do.
• Don't do wrong things.
• Avoid them because they are wrong.
• Duty-based ethics are usually what people are talking about when they refer to 'the principle of the thing'.
• Duty-based ethics teaches that some acts are right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or bad consequences that may be produced.
• People have a duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result.
• So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer.
• If we compare Deontologists with Consequentialists we can see that Consequentialists begin by considering what things are good, and identify 'right' actions as the ones that produce the maximum of those good things.
• Deontologists appear to do it the other way around; they first consider what actions are 'right' and proceed from there. So a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action.
• Kant's version of duty-based ethics was based on something that he called 'the categorical imperative' which he intended to be the basis of all other rules (a 'categorical imperative' is a rule that is true in all circumstances.)
• The categorical imperative comes in two versions which each emphasise different aspects of the categorical imperative. Kant is clear that each of these versions is merely a different way of expressing the same rule; they are not different rules.
• The first one emphasises the need for moral rules to be universalisable.
• If you aren't willing for the ethical rule you claim to be following to be applied equally to everyone - including you - then that rule is not a valid moral rule. I can't claim that something is a valid moral rule and make an exception to it for myself and my family and friends.
• So, for example, if I wonder whether I should break a promise, I can test whether this is right by asking myself whether I would want there to be a universal rule that says 'it's OK to break promises'.
• Since I don't want there to be a rule that lets people break promises they make to me, I can conclude that it would be wrong for me to break the promise I have made.
• Second version,Kant thought that all human beings should be treated as free and equal members of a shared moral community, and the second version of the categorical imperative reflects this by emphasising the importance of treating people properly. It also acknowledges the relevance of intention in morality.
• Kant doesn't want to say that people can't be used at all; it may be fine to use a person as long as they are also being treated as an end in themselves.
• Utilitarianism is another ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.
• Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.
• However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
• Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life.
• This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.