action consequence

character
deontology itself of the action

Oscar Bulaong Jr., PhD

Department of Philosophy virtue ethics:
23 May 2017 deontology: utilitarianism:
investigates
measures the rightness/
how character
intrinsic rightness/ wrongness depends
affects
wrongness of the on the results of the
decision-
action action
making

historical background
Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785)
But Immanuel Kant never called the Grundlegung a
“deontology”
Are there “deontologies”?
Coined “deontological”: C. D. Broad, Five Types of
Ethical Theory (1930).
Would Kant have called his moral philosophy a
“deontology”? Supreme principle of morality
 Kant’s agenda, 1 of 2 Kant’s agenda, 2 of 2
Since my aim here is directed properly to moral
philosophy, I limit the question proposed to this: [...] that, for example, the command “thou shalt not
is it not of the utmost necessity to work out for lie” does not hold only for human beings, as if other
once a pure moral philosophy, completely rational beings did not have to heed it, […] the
cleansed of everything that may be only empirical ground of obligation here must not be sought in the
and that belongs to anthropology? [...] Everyone nature of the human being or in the circumstances of
must grant that a law, if it is to hold morally, that the world in which he is placed, but a priori simply
is, as a ground of an obligation, must carry with it in the concepts of pure reason [...] (4:389)
absolute necessity [...]

Kant’s self-ordained task How I teach the Grundlegung

1. criteria for a rational moral philosophy
a. basis should be pure reason
b. source must be good will
The present groundwork is, however, nothing c. [inclination: respect for the law]
more than the search for and establishment of the
d. motive must be duty
supreme principle of morality, which constitutes
2. one categorical imperative, three formulations
by itself a business that in its purpose is complete
a. universalizability
and to be kept apart from every other moral
b. human-as-end in itself
investigation (4:392).
c. autonomy
d. [kingdom of ends]
 a local gov’t official asks, why
should I not accept a bribe?
a student asks, a husband asks, why should I
remain faithful to my wife?
why must I study?
what can I do to a board examinee asks, why must I
not study a test leakage?
motivate myself to
study? a child asks, why should I develop
my talents?

the “right thing” =

why must I do the moral law within
right thing? “Two things fill the mind with ever new and
because it is the increasing admiration and awe, the more often
and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry
right thing to do heavens above me and the moral law within
me” (Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft).
 duty as motive duty as motive
[..] an action from duty has its moral worth not
Kant brings up the “moral worth of
actions” (4:397ff)
in the aim that is supposed to be attained by it,
but rather in the maxim in accordance with
right actions: which it is resolved upon; thus that worth
“from duty” versus “merely in depends not on the actuality of the object of the
conformity with duty” action, but merely on the principle of the
Which has moral worth? volition, in accordance with which the action is
done, without regard to any object of the
faculty of desire (4:399-400).

how can I figure out universalizability

what my duty is? 0. identify the action to be tested

1. formulate the maxim (personal rule:

by using the “When I ..., I shall ...”)
universalizability
2. test for universalizability: imagine the
procedure to test maxim as a universal law, is there a
rightness/wrongness of self-contradiction?
actions
3. conclude by articulating the duty
 universalizability test universalizability test
demonstrated, 1 of 3 demonstrated, 2 of 3
Another man finds himself urged by need to borrow
money. He well knows that he will not be able to
[...] Now this principle of self-love or personal
repay it but sees also nothing will be lent him unless
advantage is perhaps quite consistent with my whole
he promises firmly to repay it within a determinate
future welfare, but the question now is whether it is
time. He would like to make such a promise, but he
right. I therefore turn the demand of self-love into a
still has enough conscience to ask himself, is it not
universal law and put the question as follows: how
forbidden and contrary to duty to help oneself out of
would it be if my maxim became a universal law? I
need in such a way? Supposing that he still decided to
then see at once that it could never hold as a universal
do so, his maxim of action would go as follows: when
law of nature and be consistent with itself, but must
I believe myself to be in need of money I shall borrow
necessarily contradict itself. [...]
money and promise to repay it, even though I know
that this will never happen. [...]

universalizability test
demonstrated, 3 of 3 universalizability
0. borrow money without intending to pay [false
promises]
[...] For, the universality of a law that everyone, when
he believes himself to be in need, could promise 1. “When I need money, I shall borrow it from
whatever he pleases with the intention of not keeping it someone without intending to pay it back.”
would make the promise and the end one might have in
it itself impossible, since no one would believe what 2. Suppose everyone were obligated to follow this
was promised him but would laugh at all such maxim, as if it were a universal law: Everyone
ought to borrow money without intending to
expressions as vain pretenses (4:422).
pay, when they need money.
 universalizability universalizability
No one will lend money, “who are you Four Observations:
fooling, you ought not pay it back”,
1. Consistency from step 0 to 3, or “tuhog”
money-lending loses its meaning, self-
contradictory 2. Kant provides a maxim that has a specific
formulation: When [situation], I shall [action].
What then is the resulting duty?
3. Universalized maxim is not imagined as done
3. Therefore, do not borrow money by everyone, but an obligation for everyone.
without intending to pay. 4. Test involves not consequences, but internal
validity of the universalized maxim.

workshop on
universalizability
universalizability 0. identify the action to be tested
1. Find your groupings. Introduce yourselves. Take 1. formulate the maxim (personal rule:
note of the following scenarios:
“When I ..., I shall ...”)
Group 1: stealing someone’s valuables
Group 2: lying about credentials in a CV 2. imagine the maxim were a universal
Group 3: refusing to give a bribe, taking a ticket
Group 4: murder (premeditated) law, is there a self-contradiction?
Group 5: studying test leakage for a board exam
yes = action is wrong; no = action is
2. Each group will have to discuss their assigned
right
scenario, then follow the three steps. Write them
on the Manila Paper in Ten Minutes.
 workshop on what is meant by
universalizability the “binding force
of reason”?
1. We do not test general (genus) actions;
instead, we test specific (species) actions.
e.g., internal validity of 1 + 1 = 2
For example: Not “lying” but “adding false
credentials to one’s resume”
2. Test: not that everyone actually did it but we insofar as it is demonstrated to be
were obligated to do it, as if it were a law. universally true, it is thus always true,
3. Universalizability ≠ Golden Rule whoever, whenever, wherever it is claimed.

what is meant by
hypothetical versus categorical imperative
the “binding force
of reason”?
hypothetical: “if the action would be
e.g., internal validity of the moral good merely as a means to something else
command, “Do not borrow money the imperative is hypothetical” (4:414)
without intending to pay”
categorical: “if the action is represented
insofar as it is demonstrated to be
as in itself good, hence as necessary in a
universally true, it is thus always true,
whoever, whenever, wherever it is claimed.
will in itself conforming to reason, as its
principle, then it is categorical” (4:414)
 categorical imperative, categorical imperative,
three formulations three formulations

(FH) “So act that you use

(FUL) Act only in accordance with humanity, whether in your own

1 that maxim through which you can

at the same time will that it become
a universal law (4:421).
2 person or in the person of any
other, always at the same time
as an end, never merely as a
means” (4:429).

categorical imperative,
three formulations why must I do the
right thing?
(FA) Act so that [your] “will is thus
not solely subject to the law, but is because it is the
subject in such a way that it must be right thing to do

3 regarded also as legislating to itself,

and precisely for this reason as
subject to the law (of which it can this is what dignity means,
consider itself as the author)” (4:431). to have “principles”
 why must I do the hypothetical versus categorical imperative
right thing?

e
hypothetical: “if the action would be

ic
because it is the good merely as a means to something else

pr
right thing to do the imperative is hypothetical” (4:414)

categorical: “if the action is represented

ity
the opposite of dignity is as in itself good, hence as necessary in a

gn
will in itself conforming to reason, as its
price, “may presyo ka ba?” principle, then it is categorical” (4:414)

di
how shall I do
the right thing?

in an autonomous
manner autonomy paternalism
 heteronomy versus autonomy heteronomy versus autonomy

Greek: autos | heteros | nomos Greek: autos | heteros | nomos

heteronomy is a moral what does this imply,

childhood
to autonomously not borrow
autonomy is a moral maturity money without intending to pay
 a local gov’t official asks, why a local gov’t official asks, why

ne n
should I not accept a bribe? should I not accept a bribe?

an a
r.
m in
a husband asks, why should I a husband asks, why should I

s ts
remain faithful to my wife? remain faithful to my wife?

ou c
m ea
a board examinee asks, why must I a board examinee asks, why must I

no es
not study a test leakage? not study a test leakage?

to th
au o
a child asks, why should I develop a child asks, why should I develop

D
my talents? my talents?

in a nutshell
deontology is about acting from a sense
of duty = because it is right (moral law) Is deontology passé? Old-
fashioned?
how do i find out what is right?
universalizability procedure Only of historical
when i know something is right, i do it importance, but not of
because my reason “binds” me to do the decisive significance in
right thing (like 1 + 1 = 2) = moral law our lives?
how do i accomplish doing the right
thing? autonomously
why do people do the wrong thing? There are saints in the Roman Curia, among
the cardinals, priests, religious, sisters and
everybody does it anyway. laity. They work hard, and also do things
that are often hidden. I know some who
other people do far worse.
concern themselves with feeding the poor
if it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical. or who give up their free time to work in a
parish. As always, the ones who aren't
if i don’t do it, somebody else will. saints make the most noise ... a single tree
i have no choice. falling makes a sound, but a whole forest
growing doesn’t.
[Jorge Mario Bergoglio]

How I teach the Grundlegung

1. criteria for a rational moral philosophy
a. basis should be pure reason
b. source must be good will
c. [inclination: respect for the law]

supplement d. motive must be duty

2. one categorical imperative, three formulations
a. universalizability
b. human-as-end in itself
c. autonomy
d. [kingdom of ends]
 pure reason pure reason
Thus a metaphysics of morals is indispensably Thus a metaphysics of morals is indispensably
necessary not merely from a motive of necessary not merely from a motive of
speculation, in order to investigate the source speculation, in order to investigate the source
of the practical principles lying a priori in our of the practical principles lying a priori in our
reason, but also because morals themselves reason, but also because morals themselves
remain subject to all sorts of corruption as remain subject to all sorts of corruption as
long as that guiding thread and supreme norm long as that guiding thread and supreme norm
of their correct judgment is lacking (4:390). of their correct judgment is lacking (4:390).

pure reason Kant’s agenda, 1 of 2

a priori versus a posteriori
Since my aim here is directed properly to moral
necessary versus contingent philosophy, I limit the question proposed to this:
reason versus experience is it not of the utmost necessity to work out for
a priori + necessary + reason = once a pure moral philosophy, completely
when demonstrated as true, always cleansed of everything that may be only empirical
true wherever, whenever, whoever and that belongs to anthropology? [...] Everyone
claims it must grant that a law, if it is to hold morally, that
is, as a ground of an obligation, must carry with it
apply these qualities of reason to
absolute necessity [...]
moral commands
 Kant’s agenda, 2 of 2 good will
[...] that, for example, the command “thou shalt not
lie” does not hold only for human beings, as if other There is nothing it is possible to think
rational beings did not have to heed it, and so with of anywhere in the world, or indeed
all other moral laws properly so called; that, the anything at all outside it, that can be
ground of obligation here must not be sought in the held to be good without limitation,
nature of the human being or in the circumstances of excepting only a good will (4:393).
the world in which he is placed, but a priori simply
in the concepts of pure reason [...] (4:389)

good will good will

Kant continues (4:393) with a long list
“Without qualifications”, “Without
of “good” things:
limitations”, or “unqualified”?
•talents of the mind,
•qualities of temperament, Opposite is “with qualifications”
•character, For example, to be guwapo with
•gifts of fortune, qualifications …
•happiness
Only the good will is good without
And implicitly asks, are these always
qualifications.
good, “unqualified good”?
 good will good will
The good will is good not through what it
For without the principles of a good effects or accomplishes, not through its efficacy
will they can become extremely evil, for attaining any intended end, but only through
and the cold-bloodedness of a villain its willing, i.e., good in itself, and considered
makes him not only far more dangerous for itself, without comparison, it is to be
but also immediately more abominable estimated far higher than anything that could be
in our eyes than he would have been brought about by it in favor of any inclination,
held without it (4:394). or indeed, if you prefer, of the sum of all
inclinations (4:394).

Kinds of duties (4:421 footnote) Kinds of duties (4:421 footnote)

perfect / strict imperfect / meritorious
Here one must note well that I reserve the division of
kinds of duties entirely for a future metaphysics of morals; the
duties it must always be fulfilled
division here therefore stands only as a discretionary
or one must absolutely admits of other ways to fufill
(4:421) one (to order my examples). For the rest, I understand
refrain from doing it
by a perfect duty that which permits no exception to
cultivating one’s the advantage of inclination, and I do have perfect
toward oneself suicide duties that are not merely external but also internal,
talents
which runs contrary to the use of words common in
benevolence, the schools; but I do not mean to defend that here,
toward others false promises helping others in because for my aim it is all the same whether or not
need one concedes it to me (4:421 footnote).