Module 4 Deontology

MODULE 4 DEONTOLOGY
OVERVIEW
This module tackles deontology of Immanuel Kant. It shows how Kant establish
his ethical system using pure reason. This pure reason bring us to the idea of
imperatives. There are two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical
imperatives. The emphasis of this module is on categorical imperative that has three
formulations: universalizability, autonomy and kingdom of ends. There are ethical
problems you are going to resolve. You are task to resolve them using the test of
universalizability.
OBJECTIVES: At the end of this module, you should:
1. discuss Kant's ethical system based on pure reason,

2. apply the concepts of the formulations of categorical imperatives, and;
3. evaluate actions using the universalizability test.
BACKGROUND
Deontology is the study of the nature of duty and obligation. The word deontology
comes from the Greek word "deont" which means being necessary. Immanuel Kant's
ethical system is found in Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. He never called it
as deontology. C.D. Broad coin it as deontology in his book Five Types of Ethical
Theory.
PURE REASON
Immanuel Kant is in search of the supreme principle of morality. He sees that

previous moral theories could not give exact answers to moral problems. Kant
believes that morality is constant. It is similar to simple arithmetic that 1 + 1 = 2. Even
we interchange the position of the numbers it brings the same answer. When we say
that an action is good, it is good no matter what the situation is.
“Since my aim here is directed properly to moral philosophy, I

limit the question proposed to this: is it not of the utmost
necessity to work out for once a pure moral philosophy,
completely cleansed of everything that may be only empirical
and that belongs to anthropology? [...] Everyone must grant that
a law, if it is to hold morally, that is, as a ground of an obligation,
must carry with it absolute necessity [...] [...] that, for example,
the command “thou shalt not lie” does not hold only for human
beings, as if other rational beings did not have to heed it, […]
the ground of obligation here must not be sought in the nature
of the human being or in the circumstances of the world in
which he is placed, but a priori simply in the concepts of pure
reason [...]” (4:389)
According to Immanuel Kant to determine what is good we need to use reason. He

understands that reason is a unique faculty of a person that sets her a-part from
animals. Persons use their reason, which gives us the capacity to act accordingly to
the principles that we determine ourselves.
IMPERATIVES
Reason determines what is good. We use our reason to determine what we

ought-to-do. It is a self-ordained task. However, we must be able to distinguish that
there are things that we ought- to-do morally and there are non-moral. According to
Kant, most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something that is not really a
moral choice-instead, it is contingent on our desires. Let us take the desire for money.
Many of us desire to have money and there is nothing bad about it. To have money
we ought to have job or business. Same as when student desires to have a good
grade, you ought to study hard. These are examples that Kant calls as hypothetical
imperatives. It is putting conditions. Hypothetical imperatives are command you
should follow if you want something. It is putting premium in options. You may do it if
you want to and you may not do it if you don’t want it.
Hypothetical imperative is not a concern in ethics. Kant argues that we cannot

view morality through hypothetical imperative. Rather, we should view morality
through categorical imperative. What is categorical imperative? It is a command you
must follow regardless of your desires and moral obligations are derived from pure
reason. It does not matter whether you want to be moral or not. The moral law is
binding on all of us. Right and wrong is totally knowable by using your intellect.
FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Categorical imperative is best understood through various formulations. We will

enumerate the different formulations of categorical imperative:
1. Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can
at the same time will that it become a universal law (4:421).
2. “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end,
never merely as a means” (4:429).
3. Act so that [your] “will is thus not solely subject to the law, but is
subject in such a way that it must be regarded also as
legislating to itself, and precisely for this reason as subject to
the law (of which it can consider itself as the author)” (4:431).
Among these three formulations of categorical imperative, we will focus on the first
one: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law”. This is popularly known as the “universalizability
principle”.
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
The formulation of universalizability principle focuses on two important terms,

maxim and universal law. Maxim refers to rule or principle of action while universal
law refers to something that must always be done in similar situation. Let us read
Kant’s work on his demonstration of universalizability principle:
Another man finds himself urged by need to borrow money. He well

knows that he will not be able to repay it but sees also nothing will
be lent him unless he promises firmly to repay it within a
determinate time. He would like to make such a promise, but he still
has enough conscience to ask himself, is it not forbidden and
contrary to duty to help oneself out of need in such a way?
Supposing that he still decided to do so, his maxim of action would
go as follows: when I believe myself to be in need of money I shall
borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know that this
will never happen. [...]
[...] Now this principle of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps

quite consistent with my whole future welfare, but the question now
is whether it is right. I therefore turn the demand of self-love into a
universal law and put the question as follows: how would it be if my
maxim became a universal law? I then see at once that it could
never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself,
but must necessarily contradict itself. [...]
[...] For, the universality of a law that everyone, when he believes

himself to be in need, could promise whatever he pleases with the
intention of not keeping it would make the promise and the end one
might have in it itself impossible, since no one would believe what
was promised him but would laugh at all such expressions as vain
pretenses (4:422).
This could be simplified through what others call as universalizability test:
0. identify the action to be tested
1. formulate the maxim (personal

rule: “When I ..., I shall ...”)
2. test for universalizability:

imagine the maxim as a
universal law, is there a
self-contradiction?
3. conclude by articulating the duty

What we do here is we start with zero (0). It is where we identify the action to be
tested. In one (1) we formulate the maxim and it always have the template: “When I…,
I shall…”. Two (2) is where we imagine that it is universal law and test if there is a
self-contradiction. Lastly, Three (3) conclude by articulating duty. To clarify it further
let us take an example of Kant, which we read earlier. We will try to simplify using the
universalizability tesy.
0. borrow money without intending to pay [false promises]
1. “When I need money, I shall borrow it from someone

without intending to pay it back.”
2. Suppose everyone were obligated to follow this maxim,

as if it were a universal law: Everyone ought to borrow
money without intending to pay, when they need
money.
No one will lend money, “who are you fooling, you

ought not pay it back”, money-lending loses its
meaning, self-contradictory
What then is the resulting duty?
3. Therefore, do not borrow money without intending to

pay.
REMINDERS
1. Consistency from step 0 to 3.
2. Kant provides a maxim that has a specific formulation: When [situation], I

shall [action].
3. Universalized maxim is not imagined as done by everyone, but an obligation

for everyone.
4. Test involves not consequences, but internal validity of the universalized

maxim.
References:
Kant (2016). Fundamental principles of metaphysics of morals. (T.K. Abott,
Trans.)
Bulaong, O. et. al. (2018). Ethics: foundation of moral valuation. Manila: Rex
Bookstore.
Thiroux, J. (2012). Ethics: theory and practice.(11th ed.). Engelewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall

Module 4 Deontology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 Deontology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 Deontology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 4 DEONTOLOGY

OBJECTIVES: At the end of this module, you should:

1. discuss Kant's ethical system based on pure reason,

Immanuel Kant is in search of the supreme principle of morality. He sees that

“Since my aim here is directed properly to moral philosophy, I

According to Immanuel Kant to determine what is good we need to use reason. He

Reason determines what is good. We use our reason to determine what we

Hypothetical imperative is not a concern in ethics. Kant argues that we cannot

FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Categorical imperative is best understood through various formulations. We will

The formulation of universalizability principle focuses on two important terms,

Another man finds himself urged by need to borrow money. He well

[...] Now this principle of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps

[...] For, the universality of a law that everyone, when he believes

This could be simplified through what others call as universalizability test:

0. identify the action to be tested

1. formulate the maxim (personal

2. test for universalizability:

3. conclude by articulating the duty

0. borrow money without intending to pay [false promises]

1. “When I need money, I shall borrow it from someone

2. Suppose everyone were obligated to follow this maxim,

No one will lend money, “who are you fooling, you

What then is the resulting duty?

3. Therefore, do not borrow money without intending to

1. Consistency from step 0 to 3.

2. Kant provides a maxim that has a specific formulation: When [situation], I

3. Universalized maxim is not imagined as done by everyone, but an obligation

4. Test involves not consequences, but internal validity of the universalized

You might also like