ETHICS WEEK 7: THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM 3.

THE UTILITARIAN VALUE PLEASURE AND

HAPPINESS:
UTILITARIANISM

• an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of ✓ This means that the usefulness of actions is
pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on its promotion of happiness as the
based on the usefulness of the actions and experience of pleasure for the greatest number
consequences. This means that pleasure is good of persons, even at the expense of some
and that the goodness of action is determined by individual rights.
its usefulness.

• Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832)

that one’s action and behavior are good in as
much as they are directed toward the experience • Born on February 15, 1748 in London, England
of which refers to the usefulness of the and died on June 6, 1832.
consequences of one’s action and behavior.
• He was the teacher of James Mill, father of John
• When we argue that the drug war program of the Stuart Mill.
present government is permissible because doing
so results in better public safety, then we are • Intellectual inheritor of David Hume
arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian
because we argue that some individual rights can • Bentham first wrote about the greatest
be sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness happiness principle of ethics and was known for
of the many. a system of penal management called
PANOPTICON.

1. THEIR SYSTEM OF ETHICS EMPHASIZES THE JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIANISM

CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS: • Intellectual inheritor of David Hume
• Recognized as “Act Utilitarian”
✓ This means that the goodness or the badness
• Right actions result in “good or pleasure”,
of an action is based on whether it is useful in
wrong actions result in pain or absence of
contributing to a specific purpose for the
pleasure.
greatest number of people.
• The Principle of Utility
• Law and Social Hedonism
• Felicific Calculus
2. UTILITARIANISM IS CONSEQUENTIALIST:

✓ This means that the moral value of actions and THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY (JEREMY BENTHAM)
decisions is based solely or greatly on the
In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals
usefulness of their consequences; it is the
and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham begins by
usefulness of results that determines whether
arguing that our actions are governed by two
the action or behavior is good or bad.
“sovereign masters”, which he calls pleasure and pain.
These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us
determine what is good or bad and what ought to be
done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.
 FELICIFIC CALCULUS (JEREMY BENTHAM)
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these ✓ common currency framework that calculates
sovereign masters: PLEASURE and PAIN. the pleasure that some actions can produce.

✓ Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all

On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of actions and their resultant pleasure. This
our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our means that actions are evaluated on this single
desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday scale regardless of preferences and values. In
actions, we do what is pleasure as good if, and only if, this sense, pleasure and pain can only
they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ
means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but from other experiences of pleasure and pain
to also inquire whether the things we do make us accordingly.
happier. Having identified the tendency for pleasure
and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility, In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the
Bentham equates happiness with pleasure. basis of intensity or strength of pleasure;

• DURATION or length of the experience of pleasure.

• CERTAINTY, UNCERTAINTY, or the likelihood that
Actions that lead to PLEASURE ARE RIGHT, ones that pleasure will occur; and
produce PAIN ARE WRONG. • PROPINQUITY, REMOTENESS, or how soon there
will be pleasure.

LAW AND SOCIAL HEDONISM (JEREMY BENTHAM)

These indicators allow us to measure and pain in
LAW actions, we need to consider THREE MORE
• Government should not pass laws that protect DIMENSIONS:
tradition, customs or rights. • FECUNDITY or the chance it has of being followed
by sensations of the same kind.
• Government should base all laws on the happiness
principle. The greatest happiness for the greatest • PURITY or the chance it has of not being followed
number. by sensations of the opposite kind.

• Bentham’s theory is both empirical (how much pain • Lastly, when considering the number of persons
or pleasure is caused by the act or policy) and who are affected by pleasure or pain, another
democratic (each individual’s happiness is as dimension is to be considered --EXTENT.
important as any other’s).

JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)

SOCIAL HEDONISM: Ethics as Greatest Happiness
• Was born on May 20, 1806 in Penton Ville, London,
• Moral worth judged by presumed effect.
United Kingdom and died on May 8, 1873 in
• Action guided by pleasure/pain. Avignon, France from Erysipelas.
• His “auto-icon” still attends department
meetings • Raised according to utilitarian ideals.
• College students stole his mummi2ed head and
partied with it. • Studies poetry to restore his sanity

• His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian

views are found in his long essay entitled
UTILITARANISM (1861).
• He studied Greek at the age of three and Latin at PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER
the age of eight. He wrote a history of Roman Law (JOHN STUART MILL)
age eleven. He was married to Harriet Taylor after
21 years of friendship.
✓ Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is
neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it
• Mill worried that Bentham’s theory wasn’t
cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones
complete.
satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a
moral good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not
• Problem with Bentham’s Theory.
dismissive of sacrifices that procure more
happiness for others.
• A more sophisticated form of Utilitarianism.
✓ Utilitarianism is interested with the best
• Concerned with quality of pleasure and quantity of consequence for the highest number of people. It
people who enjoy it. is not interested with the intention of the agent.
Moral value cannot discernible in the intention or
• Recognized higher and lower types of human motivation of the person doing the act; it is based
pleasure. solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on
the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.
• PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER

• JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s

happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the
greatest number.
Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure.
He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish
pleasures QUALITATIVELY and not merely
quantitatively.
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of (JOHN STUART MILL)
pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals.
He thinks that there are HIGHER INTELLECTUAL and ✓ When we call anything a person’s right, we mean
LOWER BASE PLEASURES. that he has a valid claim on society to protect him
in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or
by that education and opinion. If he has what we
Lower pleasures: eating, drinking, sexuality, etc. consider a sufficient claim, on whatever account,
to have something guaranteed to him by society,
Higher pleasures: intellectuality, creativity and
we say that he has a right to it.
spirituality.

✓ The right to due process, the right to free speech

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a or religion, and others are justified because they
pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a contribute to the general good. This means that
fool satisfied.” society is made happier if its citizens are able to live
their lives knowing that their interest are protected
✓ and that society (as a whole) defends it.

✓ A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in as

much as they produce an overall happiness that is
greater than the unhappiness resulting from their
implementation.
✓ Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and UTILITARIANISM, 1863
their justification. He points out that when legal
rights are not morally justified in accordance to the ✓ Mill’s great work on ethics
greatest happiness principle, then these rights ✓ We are made happy by “elevated” pleasures
need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is ✓ Pleasures can be higher or lower quality
like saying that there are instances when the law is ✓ Better to be Socrates dissatis2ed than a fool
not morally justified and, in this case, even satisfied.
objectionable. ✓ We need to pay attention to quality, because
our ability to enjoy higher pleasure can be
damaged by too much low pleasure.
In short, Mill’s moral rights and considerations of
justice are not absolute, but are only justified by
their consequences to promote the greatest good of
the greatest number.

BETHAMITE (DEMOCRATIC UTILITARIANISM)

✓ No one pleasure is inherently better than any

other.

✓ If drunken parties make you happy, then go for it!

✓ Reading poetry isn’t better than watching The

Bachelor, it’s just different.

MILLSIAN (ELITE UTILITARIANISM)

✓ Some pleasures are better than others.

✓ If you party and get drunk every day, then you

won’t be as happy as you otherwise might be.

✓ Enjoying poetry is better than watching bad TV.

And if you disagree, it is because you don’t
understand quality.

JEREMY BENTHAM: Create all happiness that you are

able to create; remove all the misery you are able to
remove.

JOHN STUART MILL: The only purpose for which power

can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others.
 ETHICS WEEK 8: NATURAL LAW THREE PARTS OF NATURAL LAW

NATURAL LAW 1. The theory of Natural Law rests upon a certain

view of what the world is like. On this view, the
• a system in which actions are seen as morally or world is a rational order with values and
ethically correct if it accords with the end purpose purposes built into its very nature.
of human nature and human goals.
2. A consequence of this way of thinking is that
• It follows the fundamental maxim, “do good and the laws of nature not only describe how things
avoid evil”. are, they specify how things ought to be as
well.
• a concept that suggests a code, law, or set of rights
inherent to existence and quite distinct from 3. The third part of the theory addresses the
human created legal systems. question of moral knowledge. How are we to
go about determining what is right and what is
• In most religious philosophy, natural laws can wrong?
always be supplanted by divine laws.

• Thomas Aquinas and many other philosophers HUMAN ACTS - as Aquinas expressed proceeds from
suggest that natural laws are built into the fabric of the will. (You made that actions deliberately)
the universe, and thus guide human concepts of
ACTS OF MAN – an action that does not proceeds from
reason and rationality.
the will. (Whether you like it or not, you will still do or
perform it)
• Natural law theory is a philosophical and legal
belief that all humans are governed by basic innate MORAL OBJECT/FINIS OPERIS – fundamental element
laws, or laws of nature, which are separate and of the morality of the human act, there is also the
distinct from laws which are legislated. Legislated
circumstance. Circumstance, is a part of the human act
laws are sometimes referred to as “positive laws” that must be considered in order to evaluate the total
in the framework of natural law theory, to make a moral act.
clear distinction between natural and social laws.
This theory has heavily influenced the laws and INTENTION/MOTIVE – is a means towards the
governments of many nations, including England attainment of true happiness both of the agent and the
and the United States, and it is also reflected in common good.
publications like the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

• The origins of natural law theory lie in Ancient Ashley and O’Rouke said, “WE MAY NOT DO EVIL FOR
Greece. Many Greek philosophers discussed and GOOD TO COME OUT OF IT”.
codified the concept of natural law, and it played
an important role in Greek government. Later
philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
Hobbes, and John Locke built on the work of the
Greeks in natural law theory treatises of their own. This principle is used in order to judge the moral
Many of these philosophers used natural law as a acceptability of the human act that has two effects, one
framework for criticizing and reforming positive is good and the other is evil.
laws, arguing that positive laws which are unjust
under the principles of natural law are legally
wanting.
 FOUR CONDITIONS OF DOUBLE EFFECT

• The action is good in itself or at least indifferent.

• The good effect must come first before the evil

effect or a least simultaneously.

• The good effect must be intended.

• There must be a proportionately grave reason for

the evil effect to happen.
 THE THEORY OF NATURAL LAW course - for the sake of people, whose well- being is the
point of the whole arrangement.
In the history of Christian thought, the dominant
theory of ethics is not the Divine Command Theory. We must believe, first that plants exist for the sake of
That honor goes to the Theory of Natural Law. This animals, second that all other animals exist for the sake
theory has three main parts. of man, tame animals for the use he can make of them
as well as for the food they provide; and as for wild
The Theory of Natural Law rests upon a certain view of animals, most though not all of these can be used for
what the world is like. On this view, the world is a food or are useful in other ways; clothing and
rational order with values and purposes built into its instruments can be made out of them. If then we are
very nature. This conception derives from the Greeks, right in believing that nature makes nothing without
whose way of understanding the world dominated some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be
Western thinking for over 1,700 years. A central that nature has made all things specifically for the sake
feature of this conception was the idea that everything of man.
in nature has a purpose.
This seems stunningly anthropocentric. Aristotle may
Aristotle incorporated this idea into his system of be forgiven, however, when we consider that virtually
thought around 350 B.C. when he said that, in order to every important thinker in out history has entertained
understand anything, four questions must be asked: some such thought. Humans are a remarkably vain
What is it? What is it made of? How did it come to species.
exist? And what is it for? (The answers might be: This is
a knife, it is made of metal, it was made by a craftsman, The Christian thinkers who came later found this view
and it is used for cutting.) Aristotle assumed that the of the world to be perfectly congenial. Only one thing
last question - what is it for? - could sensibly be asked was missing: God was needed to make the picture
of anything whatever. Nature, he said, belongs to the complete. (Aristotle has denied that God was a
class of causes which act for the sake of something. necessary part of the picture. For him, the worldview
we have outlined was not religious; it was simply a
It seems obvious that artifacts such as knives have description of how things are.) Thus, the Christian
purposes, because craftsmen have a purpose in mind thinkers said that the rain falls to help the plants
when they make them. But what about natural objects because that is what the Creator intended, and the
that we do not make? Aristotle believed that they have animals are for human use because that is what God
purposes too. One of his examples was that we have made them for. Values and purposes were, therefore,
teeth so that we can chew. Such biological examples conceived to be a fundamental part of the nature of
are quite persuasive; each part of our bodies does things, because the world was believed to have been
seem, intuitively, to have a special purpose - eyes are created according to a divine plan.
for seeing, the heart is for pumping blood, and so on.
But Aristotle’s claim was not limited to organic beings. A corollary of this way of thinking is that the laws of
According to him, everything has a purpose. He nature not only describe how things are, they specify
thought, to take a different sort of example, that rain how things ought to be as well. Things are as they
falls so that plants can grow. As odd as it may seem to ought to be when they are serving their natural
a modern reader, Aristotle was perfectly serious about purposes. When they do not, or cannot, serve those
this. He considered other alternatives, such as that the purposes, things have gone wrong. Eyes that cannot
rain falls of necessity and that this helps the plants only see are defective, and drought is a natural evil; the
by coincidence, and rejected them. badness of both is explained by reference to natural
law. But there are also implications for human conduct.
The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system, Moral rules are not viewed as deriving from the laws of
with each thing having its own proper place and serving nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be natural,
its own special purpose. There is a neat hierarchy: The while other are unnatural; and unnatural acts are said
rain exists for the sake of the plants, the plants exist for to be morally wrong.
the sake of the animals, and the animals exist - of
Consider, for example, the duty of beneficence. We are Second, the Theory of Natural Law has gone out of
morally required to be concerned for our neighbor’s fashion (although that does not, of course, prove it is
welfare as we are for our own. Why? According to the false) because the view of the world on which it rests is
Theory of Natural Law, beneficence is natural for us, out of keeping with modern science. The world as
considering the kind of creatures we are. We are by our described by Galileo, Newton, and Darwin has no place
nature social creatures who want and need the for facts about right and wrong. Their explanations of
company of other people. It is also part of our natural natural phenomena make no reference to values or
makeup that we care about others. Someone who does purposes. What happens just happens, fortuitously, in
not care at all for others - who really does not care, the consequence of the laws of cause and effect. If the
through and through - is seen as deranged, in the terms rain benefits the plants, it is only because the plants
of modern psychology, a sociopath. A malicious have evolved by the laws of natural selection in a rainy
personality is defective, just as eyes are defective if climate.
they cannot see. And, it may be added, this is true
because we were created by God, with a specific Thus, modern science gives us a picture of the world as
human nature, as part of his overall plan for the world. a realm of facts, where the only natural laws are the
laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly
The endorsement of beneficence is relatively and without purpose. Whatever values may be, they
uncontroversial. Natural law theory has also been are not part of the natural order. As for the idea that
used, however, to support moral views that are more nature has made all things specifically for the sake of
contentious. Religious thinkers have traditionally man, that is only human vanity. To the extent that one
condemned deviant sexual practices, and the accepts the worldview of modern science, then, one
theoretical justification of their opposition has come will be skeptical of the Theory of Natural Law. It is no
more often than not from theory of natural law. If accident that the theory was a product, not of modern
everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of sex? thought, but of the Middle Ages.
The obvious answer is procreation. Sexual activity that
is not connected with making babies can therefore be The third part of the theory addresses the question of
viewed as unnatural, and so such practices as moral knowledge. How are we to go about determining
masturbation and oral sex - not to mention gay sex - what is right and what is wrong? The Divine Command
can be condemned for this reason. This way of thinking Theory says that we must consult God’s
about sex dates back to at least to St. Augustine in the commandments. The Theory of Natural Law gives a
fourth century, and it is explicit in the writings of St. different answer. The natural laws that specify what we
Thomas Aquinas. The moral theology of the Catholic should do are laws of reason, which we are able to
Church is based on natural law theory. This line of grasp because God, the author of the natural order, has
thought lies behind its whole sexual ethic. made us rational beings with the power to understand
that order. Therefore, the Theory of Natural Law
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right thing to do is
has few advocates today. It is generally rejected for whatever course of conduct has the best reasons on its
two reasons. First, it seems to involve a confusion of is side. To use the traditional terminology, moral
and ought. In the 18th century David Hume pointed out judgments are dictates of reason. St. Thomas Aquinas,
that what is the case and what ought to be the case are the greatest of the natural-law theorists, wrote in his
logically different notions, and no conclusion about masterpiece the Summa Theologica that To disparage
one follows from the other. We can say that people are the dictate of reason is equivalent to condemning the
naturally disposed to be beneficent, but it does not command of God.
follow that they should be beneficent. Similarly, it may
be that sex does produce babies, but it does not follow This means that the religious believer has no special
that sex ought or ought not to be engaged in only for access to moral truth. The believer and the nonbeliever
that purpose. Facts are one thing; values are another. are in the same position. God has given both the same
The Theory of Natural Law seems to conflate them. powers of reasoning; and so believer and nonbeliever
alike may listen to reason and follow its directives. They
function as moral agents in the same way, even though
the nonbelievers lack of faith prevents them from performing, the moral object specifies the human act
realizing that God is the author of the rational order in and is the purpose that the act accomplishes as a
which they participate and which their moral means to the ultimate goal of life. For example, ‘If I
judgments express. gave money to the poor, I am performing an act of
charity, a human act judged by its moral object or the
In an important sense, this leaves morality intention inherent in the act. Although the moral
independent of religion. Religious belief does not affect object or finis operis is the fundamental element of the
the calculation of what is best, and the results of moral morality of the human act, there is also the
inquiry are religiously neutral. In this way, even though circumstance. Circumstance is a part of the human act
they may disagree about religion, believers and that must be considered in order to evaluate the total
nonbelievers inhabit the same moral universe. moral act (Summa Theologica, 1947, I-II, q. 18, a. 3).
Circumstance can be considered in various moral
questions; thus, we might ask, ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘how
NATURAL LAW much’ or ‘in what manner’. Example, a physician who
injects a debilitated patient with a fate dose drugs to
What is natural law? ‘Natural’ because the goals and end his suffering. The moral object of the act (what
the major values human beings seek are innate, that is, actually the physician intends to do) is to kill the patient
they are from the nature and are not selected freely by and it is this intention that makes the physical act of
individual persons or communities. Since human the injection a moral evil. The circumstance of the
nature does not change, the basic goals are constant physician’s act, e.g., time, place, and condition of the
and basic morality does not change. It is considered patient cannot make this act good. Finally, the ultimate
‘law’ because by reasoning about the innate goals and reason that determines the moral act is the intention.
values we can determine actions, which is oftentimes Intention/motive is a means towards the attainment of
expressed in norms or laws that enables the person to true happiness both of the agent and the common
achieve their goals. good. Thus, in the example, killing an innocent person
to help relieve pain cannot be justified. That is why as
Natural Law is a system in which actions are seen as Ashley and O’Rouke said, ‘we may not do evil for good
morally or ethically correct if it accords with the end to come out of it’ (Originally is taken from Rom. 3:8,
purpose of human nature and human goals. Natural Ashley, OP and O’Rouke OP, 2001).
Law follows the fundamental maxim, ‘do good and
avoid evil’. A follower of natural law contends that God
is the creator. They believed that God’s law is reflected
in nature and in His creation. So by following man’s The presentation at hand speaks about the norms of
heart therefore they can recognized the law of God. moral act, however, if given a situation or alternative
wherein there is the conflicting issues as to what
The natural law method of seeking moral norms and course of action will prevail, Aquinas designed a
evaluating human acts has a long history in the catholic method known as ‘Principle of Double-Effect’. This
community. On the other hand, it is closely associated principle is used in order to judge the moral
to St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas begins his natural law acceptability of the human act that has two effects, one
theory by differentiating human acts from acts of man. is good and the other is evil. Traditional Moral
Human acts as Aquinas expressed proceeds from the theology, presents four conditions for the double
will and the act of man is an action that does not effect principle to be applied:
proceeds from the will. It is only the human act that is
being determined as moral or immoral because its • The action is good in itself or at least indifferent.
origin is the exercise of the will. The morality of the • The good effect must come first before the evil
human act depends primarily on the ‘object’ rationally effect or a least simultaneously.
chosen by the deliberate will (John Paul II in Veritatis • The good effect must be intended.
Splendor, 1993). The moral object can be described as • There must be a proportionately grave reason for
the intention inherent in the action that one is actually the evil effect to happen.
The application of the principle of double effect may have an adverse and untoward effect that it is not
emphasized that the good effect is really and honestly intended. Example, the use of marijuana to control a
the one that is intended, instead of the evil one. For certain pain and wasting; the euphoric effects are the
example, a nurse is treating pneumonia to a patient primary intention even if the undesired effects are
with terminal cancer. In prescribing medication, one permitted. Another one is applying sedition to a very
may possibly claim that his/her intention is to treat the restless and delirious patient (as in rabies) it may
pneumonia but it is possible as well that in one’s mind require dangerous drugs or even anesthesia even if
it would also be good so that death could be hastened these will shorten the life of the patient. It is to be
and the patient would not be in pain and prolonged remembered here, that the primary purpose of the
suffering for a longer period of time. In this example, health care provider is to provide comfort and ease
it is required that the purity of one’s internal action of suffering. Indeed, good intention demands impartiality
consent or intention must be intended. and absence of conflict of interest. Though, this is not
always possible, still, decision-making at the end must
Situations by which the principle of double-effect can recognize the individual conscience that requires
be seen and applied and is not limited to it: pain, prudence of action. Prudence, as Aquinas said, ‘is right
restlessness, delirious, uncontrolled seizures and reason in action’
depression caused by illness. Some of the treatment

.
 ETHICS WEEK 9: DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY To better understand deontology, compare it to some
opposing theories, such as utilitarianism, which says
In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological we have an obligation to take the course of action
theories judge the morality of choices by criteria that achieves the most positive outcome or
different from the states of affairs those choices bring consequence. According the theory of utility, the best
about. consequence is happiness/pleasure, because it is
considered the absolute good. Consequentialism tells
The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the us we need to take into account the final consequence
forms presenting the greatest contrast to of our action, even if the act itself is not morally good.
consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be
justified by their effects—that no matter how morally
good their consequences, some choices are morally
forbidden. On such familiar deontological accounts of IMMANUEL KANT
morality, agents cannot make certain wrongful choices
• born in 1724 in the Prussian city of Königsberg.
even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of
wrongful choices will be minimized (because other
• essentially spent his whole adult life at the
agents will be prevented from engaging in similar
university and never truly travelled outside of the
wrongful choices). For such deontologists, what makes
city and only stopped working at the university
a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such
three years before his death.
norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent;
such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each
• a philosopher and scientist specializing in many
agent.
areas, including mathematics, astrophysics,
In this sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said geography and anthropology.
to have priority over the Good. If an act is not in accord
with the Right, it may not be undertaken, no matter the • wrote several dense, difficult-to-read but highly
Good that it might produce (including even a Good influential texts regarding metaphysics, metaethics
consisting of acts in accordance with the Right). and practical morality, science, history and politics.

• was the first recorded scholar to suggest that some

of the faint nebulae visible with a telescope are
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS actually separate universes in the sky.

• Deontology - Greek word deon, meaning duty. • Kant’s new ideas and published works about the
nature of reality and free will were widely
• The theory of deontology states we are morally condemned, but they have remained prominently
obligated to act in accordance with a certain set influential to this day.
of principles and rules regardless of outcome.
• Kant is responsible for the most prominent and
• In religious deontology, the principles derive from well-known form of deontological ethics.
divine commandment so that under religious
laws, we are morally obligated not to steal, lie, or • Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the
cheat. Thus, deontological theories and duties human being as having the unique capacity for
have existed for many centuries. rationality. No other animal possesses such a
propensity for reasoned thought and action, and it
• Immanuel Kant, the theory’s celebrated is exactly this ability that requires human beings to
proponent, formulated the most influential form of act in accordance with and for the sake of moral
a secular deontological moral theory in 1788. law or duty.
Unlike religious deontological theories, the rules
(or maxims) in Kant’s deontological theory derive
from human reason.
• believes human inclinations, emotions and Kant states that a true moral proposition must not be
consequences should play no role in moral action; tied to any particular conditions, including the identity
therefore, the motivation behind an action must be of the person making the decision. A moral maxim
based on obligation and well thought out before must be disconnected from the particular physical
the action takes place. Morality should, in theory, details surrounding its proposition and should be
provide people with a framework of rational rules applicable to any rational being. According to Kant, we
that guide and prevent certain actions and are first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
independent of personal intentions and desires. result in logical contradictions.

• According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is

determined by the human will, which is the only
Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based
thing in the world that can be considered good
on pure reason but allow for interpretation regarding
without qualification.
how they are performed. Because these duties depend
loosely on the subjective preferences of mankind, they
• Good will is exercised by acting according to moral
are not as strong as perfect duties but are still morally
duty/law. Moral law consists of a set of maxims,
binding. Unlike perfect duties, people do not attract
which are categorical in nature – we are bound by
blame if they do not complete an imperfect duty, but
duty to act in accordance with categorical
they receive praise if they complete it, for they have
imperatives.
gone beyond basic duty and taken responsibility upon
themselves. Imperfect duties are circumstantial,
meaning that one cannot reasonably exist in a constant
MOST SIGNIFICANT WORKS (ETHICS) state of performing that duty. What differentiates
perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties
✓ Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
are never truly completed.
✓ Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
✓ Metaphysics of Morals (1798). These texts

The first formulation of the categorical imperative

appears similar to the Golden Rule: “Do not impose on
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES
others what you do not wish for yourself.” Kant’s first
AND UTILITARIAN THEORIES
categorical imperative sounds like a paraphrase of the
Utilitarianism aims at a goal of greatest happiness (or Golden Rule. However, the Golden Rule is neither
the best consequence) and justifies any act that purely formal nor universally binding. It is empirical in
achieves that goal. the sense that applying it requires context; for
example, if you don’t want others to hit you, then don’t
Deontological theories hold that some acts are always hit them. Also, it is a hypothetical imperative in the
wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. sense that it can be formulated, and its “if-then”
Actions in deontology are always judged independently relationship is open for dispute.
of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may
unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.

The Second Formulation of the Imperative - “Act in

such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your
THREE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES own person or in the person of any other, never merely
as a means to an end but always at the same time as an
The First Formulation of the Imperative - “Act only end.” (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of
according to that maxim whereby you can at the same Morals)
time will that it should become a universal law without
contradiction.” (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of
Metaphysic of Morals)
This imperative states that every rational action must have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that create
be considered not only a principle, but also an end. incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs when
Most ends are subjective in nature because they need we attempt to universalize them, and we have an
only be pursued if they are in line with a hypothetical imperfect duty not to act by maxims that lead to
imperative. (A hypothetical imperative is a demand of unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs for all
reason that is conditional. It tells us how to act to parties involved.
achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I need to
slake my thirst.)

Using reasoned judgment, we can apply this formula to

any maxim and discover whether it is morally
For an end to be objective, it would need to be pursued permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for
categorically. The free will is the source of all rational example, the act of picking flowers from the local park.
action. Because the autonomous will is the one and The flowers are very pretty, and one may want to take
only source of moral action, it contradicts the first some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a
formulation of the categorical imperative to claim that maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do.
a person is merely a means to some other end instead Using the formula of the universal law (categorical
of an end in him or herself. imperative), there are a few irrationalities and
contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a
maxim as law. If everyone were to do this, there would
be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts
Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation
the original motive for picking the flowers. The better
from the first. A person has a perfect duty not to use
option is to go to a shop and order or plant one’s own
themselves or others merely as a means to some other
flowers.
end. For example, someone who owns slaves would be
asserting a moral right to own a slave by asserting their
rights over another person. However, this reasoning
violates the categorical imperative because it denies There are a few acts that are always forbidden, such as
the basis for free rational action and disregards the lying, which negatively affects trust between people
person as an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one and the meaning of truth. This rule remains the case
cannot treat another person as a means to an end. even when lying has advantageous or even morally
Under the second formulation of the categorical admirable consequences. Imagine a psychotic criminal
imperative, a person must maintain her moral duty to wants to kill your colleague, who fired the psychotic. If
seek an end that is equal for all people. you lie about the whereabouts of your colleague, then
an innocent life will be saved. It seems moral duty
forbids you from lying. However, a higher moral duty
trumps the duty not to lie. That is, the obligation not to
The Third Formulation of the Imperative - “Therefore, kill or help others in killing, is a higher moral duty that
every rational being must so act as if he were through we should follow.
his maxim always a legislating member in the universal
kingdom of ends.” (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of
Metaphysic of Morals).

A truly autonomous will is not subjugated to any

interest; it is subject to those laws it makes for itself,
but the will must also regard those laws as if others are
bound by the laws. If the laws are not universal, they
are not laws of conduct at all. Kant suggests that people
treat themselves and others always as ends and never
merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims
that harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. We
 ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION OF CATEGORICAL At times Kantian moral duty seems to contradict our
IMPERATIVE natural inclinations and common sense. If we obey the
moral law rather than our intuitions, we are acting
FORMULA OF HUMANITY: “Act in such a way that you morally. Deontological ethics is weaker when it comes
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the to informing us how to live well or developing virtues
person of another, always at the same time as an end of character.
and never simply as a means.”

This is a personal perspective on the same moral

theory. To fail to do this would be to treat others in a
way that contradicts the moral law. For example, if I
steal a book from a friend, I am treating him as a means
only (to obtain a book). If I ask to have his book, I am
respecting his right to say no and am thereby treating
him as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. If I
only ask for the book in order to appear nice and hope
that my friend is likely to do more things for me in the
future, then I am still treating him as a means only. It is
true that everyone uses people as a means to an end.
Bus/taxi-drivers get us where we want to go; factory
workers are the means to producing objects and
ultimately profit for their employer. But using people
only to get what we want and consistently
disrespecting their human worth is against moral law.
An example of this would be a factory owner providing
unsafe working conditions, such as Foxconn in China or
factories in countries that impose inhumane working
conditions and pay less than minimum wage.

CRITICISMS

One of the biggest criticisms of Kantian ethics is that it

discounts outcome as a valid factor in evaluating the
morality of an action. While it is not necessarily wise to
rely solely on outcome (as in
utilitarianism/consequentialism), it is not a good idea
to completely ignore the outcome altogether.

Based on Kant’s formula of humanity, human life is

sacred and inviolable, meaning one cannot enslave a
few people even if it would enable more people to lead
better lives. Killing one person to save the lives of
millions is impermissible in Kantian ethics.