DEONTOLOGY

SOME OF THE MAIN KINDS OF DEONTOLOGY

ROSS'S SYSTEM OF PRIMA FACIE DUTIES (RD):

KANT'S IMPERATIVES

• The Formula of Universal (Moral) Law
• The Formula of Respect

RIGHTS GROUNDED THEORIES (RR)

• Negative right
• Positive rights

ROSS'S SYSTEM OF PRIMA FACIE DUTIES (RD)

An action, A, is morally right if and only if (iff) no alternative to this action is a more stringent prima facie duty.

"I suggest ‘prima facie duty' or ‘conditional duty' as a brief way of referring to the characteristic... which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g., the keeping of a promise)... Whether an act is a duty proper or an actual duty depends on all morally significant kinds it is an instance of" (Ross: The Right and the Good, pp. 19-20).

THE MAIN KINDS OF PRIMA FACIE DUTIES

1. Fidelity
2. Reparation
3. Gratitude
4. Justice
5. Beneficence
6. Self-improvement
7. Non-maleficence

KANT'S IMPERATIVE(S) -- FORMULA OF UNIVERSAL (MORAL) LAW

Kant believes that actions are not merely bodily movement -- to use an example, blinking is not the same thing as winking. What distinguishes actions from mere bodily movement is their intentionality. When we act, we think of what we do in general terms. For example, right now

• I write
• I telling the truth
• I am teaching students

Kant thinks that, when we evaluate whether action is right or wrong, we may have in mind one of two things.

• (A) We may wonder whether or not the action is an efficient way to achieve a certain goal.
• (B) We may wonder whether the action is good (or right) even when taken in itself.

As he observes:

"The hypothetical imperative, therefore, says only that the action is good to some purpose, possible or actual. In the former case it is a problematical, in the latter an assertorical, practical principle. The categorical imperative, which declares the action to be of itself objectively necessary without making any reference to a purpose, i.e., without having any other end, holds as an apodictical (practical) principle.... " (Immanuel Kant, "The Categorical Imperative")

Thus, Kant distinguishes two kinds of imperatives:

• Hypothetical Imperatives link actions with a desirable goal.
• Categorical Imperative asserts that some actions are absolutely and unconditionally necessary. (We might say that Kant idea is that we can determine that some action is morally desirable (or right), when we consider what kind of action it is

Kant asserts that there is only one categorical imperative, and that all moral duties can be inferred from this imperative:

"if I think of a categorical imperative, I know immediately what it contains. For since the imperative contains besides the law only the necessity of the maxim of acting in accordance with this law. while the law contains no condition to which it is restricted, there is nothing remaining in it except the universality of law as such to which the maxim of the action should conform; and in effect this conformity alone is represented as necessary by the imperative.
There is, therefore, only one categorical imperative. It is: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. " (Immanuel Kant, "The Categorical Imperative")

Let us state Kant's idea in the form:

(KI1) An act is morally right if and only if this act is based on a maxim (or a subjective principle of will) that may become universal (moral) law (that you may rationally will to become such a law).

To see how this principle is supposed to work, think that maxims are subjective rules that actually motivate a person. Generalized maxims are principles that we achieve by eliminating all references to individuals. Here are some examples:

MAXIMS ("subjective" rules)	GENERALIZATIONS (objective rules)
I will lie when I'm tempted to lie.	Everyone will lie when one is tempted to lie.
I will keep change when I can get away with this.	Everyone will keep change when one can do this.
I will break my word when it's beneficial for me.	One will break one's word when it's beneficial for her.

Imagine now that someone considers a certain action. This person must consider his or her maxim. Then she needs to consider a generalized form of this maxim. Finally, she has to determine this generalized maxim can becomes a moral rule in a society. That is, she or he must consider what would happen when everyone acted on the same maxim. Can we rationally will (want) that everyone follows the same rule?

• If YES ===> his or her action (based on this maxim) is morally right.
• If NO ===> his or her action (based on this maxim) is morally wrong.

Consider Kant's example #2: "Another man finds himself forced by need to borrow money. He well knows that he will not be able to repay it, but he also sees that nothing will be loaned him if he does not firmly promise to repay it at a certain time. He desires to make such a promise, but he has enough conscience to ask himself whether it is not improper and opposed to duty to relieve his distress in such a way. Now, assuming he does decide to do so, the maxim of his action would be as follows: When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so. Now this principle of self-love or of his own benefit may very well be compatible with his whole future welfare, but the question is whether it is right. He changes the pretension of self-love into a universal law and then puts the question: How would it be if my maxim became a universal law? He immediately sees that it could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself; rather it must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a law which says that anyone who believes himself to be in need could promise what he pleased with the intention of not fulfilling it would make the promise itself and the end to be accomplished by it impossible; no one would believe what was promised to him but would only laugh at any such assertion as vain pretense."

A person in Kant's example acts on the following maxim:

(Max) When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so.

The generalization of this maxim goes as follows:

(GenMax) Anyone who believes himself to be in need could promise what he pleased with the intention of not fulfilling.

Kant now asks whether (GenMax) can become the universal moral law for a society. He thinks that it cannot. For, if (GenMax) were adopted, no one would believe any promising. So, no one could borrow money by making a false promise.

PROBLEMS FOR KANT

MAXIMS ("subjective" rules)	GENERALIZATIONS (objective rules)
I will never be the first to arrive at a party.	No one ever be the first to arrive at a party.
I will never be the last to leave a party	No one ever be the last to leave a party.

Actions based on these maxims are morally innocent (permissible). But I cannot rationally will that the generalized maxims become moral rules. So, (K1) implies that my actions are wrong.

KANT'S SECOND IMPERATIVE -- THE FORMULA OF RESPECT

Kant asserts also what follows: "...man and, in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. In all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, he must always be regarded at the same time as an end . . .
The ground of this principle is: rational nature exists as an end in itself. Man necessarily thinks of his own existence in this way; thus far it is a subjective principle of human actions. Also every other rational being thinks of his existence by means of the same rational ground which holds also for myself, thus it is at the same time an objective principle from which, as a supreme practical ground, it must be possible to derive all laws of the will. The practical imperative, therefore, is the following: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. " (Immanuel Kant, "The Categorical Imperative")

We can extract from this passage the second formulation of categorical imperative:

(KI2) An act is morally right iff the agent does not treat anyone (any person) merely as a means but also as an end in itself.

Important things to remember

• Treating someone as a means is not the same thing as treating someone merely as a means.
• Kant is not very clear what it means to treat someone merely as a means (as opposed to, as a means and also as an end in itself).

  A "HARM" INTERPRETATION OF KANTIAN ETHICS

  • X treats Y merely as a means if X harms (or hurts) Y.
    X does not treat Y merely as a means if X benefits Y (or at least does not harm/hurt) Y

    A PROBLEM: Sometimes we harm a well informed volunteer. In such a case, our action is not wrong (as this interpretation implies).

  A "RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY" INTERPRETATION OF KANTIAN ETHICS

  • X treats Y merely as a means if X does not respect autonomy of Y.
    X does not treat Y merely as a means if X respects autonomy of Y.

  SOME PROBLEMS RELATED TO RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY
  In general, we respect one's autonomy if we act in accordance with his or her evaluations.

  AN "EXPLICIT CONSENT" INTERPRETATION OF RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY

  • X treats Y merely as a means if Y does/did not explicitly consent to this treatment.
    X does not treat Y merely as a means if Y explicitly consents to this treatment.
    • A PROBLEM: We do not consent to some forms of "emergency" treatment; they do not require any explicit consent.
    • A FURTHER PROBLEM: Sometimes we do have an explicit consent and yet the action is wrong (the consent is not rational).

  AN "INFORMED CONSENT" OF KANTIAN ETHICS

  X treats Y merely as a means iff Y does not give rational and informed consent to this treatment.

  AN INFORMED CONSENT:
  Consent given after full disclosure of risks, benefits, and alternative treatments to any proposed procedure; such consent would be autonomous.

  AN "INFORMED HYPOTHETICAL CONSENT" INTERPRETATION OF AUTONOMY

  X treats Y merely as a means if Y would not rationally consent to this treatment, if Y were well informed.

  X does not treat Y merely as a means if Y would rationally consents to this treatment, if Y were well informed.

  TWO LEVEL VIEW

  • Clear cut cases: we base the decisions on informed hypothetical consent
  • Hard cases: when it is not clear whether Y would consent or not (e.g., Y can be seriously harmed, there are serious risks involved, etc)…
    we require that Y gives an explicit and rational consent to some treatment or else Y is treated merely as a means

  SOME PROBLEMS

  • Would a burglar to our calling police (see Gert, "Morality vs. Slogans")?
  • Would a criminal not consent to being sent to jail? Would an enemy consent to being spied upon?

RIGHTS GROUNDED THEORIES (RR)

An act is morally right if and only if the act does not violate any rights.

There is a difference between negative and positive rights.

X is a negative right iff X is a right not to be interfered with.
X is a positive right iff X is a right to receive some benefits.
Negative rights are correlated with negative obligations or duties.
Positive rights are correlated with positive obligations or duties.