Scribd
Upload
26 views4 pages

Kant's Deontological Ethics Explained

The document discusses Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics theory, which holds that actions are morally right or wrong based on adherence to rules of duty and obligation rather than the consequences of the actions. Kant believed people should act from goodwill and follow their duties. The document also differentiates between legal and moral rights.

Uploaded by

Judith Pical
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views4 pages

Kant's Deontological Ethics Explained

The document discusses Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics theory, which holds that actions are morally right or wrong based on adherence to rules of duty and obligation rather than the consequences of the actions. Kant believed people should act from goodwill and follow their duties. The document also differentiates between legal and moral rights.

Uploaded by

Judith Pical
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Lesson 3.

3: Immanuel Kant: Deontological Ethics

Lesson Summary

Kant’s philosophy is also known as Deontological Ethics “a theory that suggests actions are good
or bad according to a clear set of rules”. Its name comes from the Greek word “deon,” meaning
duty. Actions that follow these rules are ethical, while actions that do not, are not.” The moral life
is living with rules, doing the duties, and exercising the rationality of man. Through the Categorical
Imperative that you will realize that being ethical is not theoretical rather, there is always an
apparent imperative in the moral command (Kant, 2002).

Learning Outcomes

1. You will be able to understand and articulate Kant’s moral theory.


2. You will have the capacity to differentiate legal from a moral right.

Motivation Question

Have you been into a situation where you have to take full responsibility for your actions because
duty says so?

Discussion

There is an apparent contradiction of Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics to John


Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham’s idea that human nature as selfish and requires an objective
calculus for ethical action to result. Kant, however, proposed that man should act out of his
goodwill and not by the consequences of his actions. Goodwill is done by following one’s duty
and obligation. Duty and Obligation are actualized in Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law” (Schneewind 2010).
Apparently, the Categorical Imperative of Kant has three essential elements or sometimes
labeled as three kinds of the categorical imperative that you should remember.
First,“ Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” the universal or moral law that can be explained in a way that it
can be universal if each and everyone of us bows to follow the rule equally. Thus, the actions that
can be considered as right or wrong is are the same to each and everyone of us.
Second, “Act so that you treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of any
other human beings, never merely as a means, but always at the same time end.” You should treat
other human beings as ends, and not a means of any sort. In other words, you should take into
consideration the life of individual human beings as equally important to your life and should not
be used as a means. To have said this, apparently, respect for others is but a necessity so as not
to use others as a means (Kant, 2002).
Third, “Act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of
ends.” Since you are bound to treat human beings as an end themselves, then you should bring it
into the level of society. In this manner, everyone is treated as an end, and morality is not only
taken individually but as a foundation of society as a whole. This maxim fundamentally
establishes that our reasons can be universalized, thus the ultimate goal of Kant’s Categorical
Imperative (Kant, 2002).
Let us try to elucidate further the first element of the Categorical Imperative since it is a
strong foundation in Kant’s morality. Take into consideration this example: Supposing you steal
something from others and it is perfectly fine with you, it would faultlessly mean that you allow
stealing to be universal, and that includes you being the victim. The maxim concerning the
universalization of an act presupposes the idea that there is a colossal chance for such an act to
be accepted. However, in the deliberation process, the proposal is met with different oppositions
before it can be considered a law and eventually becomes a duty to follow.
Kant’s Deontological Ethics reiterated the idea of duty and obligation that, one should act
according to his duty and responsibility. In so doing, goodwill is attained in such a way that you
should act based on your duty patterned in reason. For example, you have a duty as a student to
submit your class requirements on time. Thus you are bound to follow this duty in turn will give
you the freedom to do other things in the future (Schneewind, 2010).

Legal and Moral Rights

The modern understanding or rights stems from the idea of the permissibility of actions.
Consequently, a deliberation is but necessary in choosing what kinds of rights should an
institution offer to its constituents. Thus, in the acceptance of giving rights presupposes the
recognition of the approval of the distribution of freedom and authority, in turn, there is an
unblemished endorsement of certain views of what are the right things to be done and wrong
things that should not be done (Zalta, 2016).
Trite as it may seem, but the proposition that states, “Not all legal are moral” you might
not be held responsible legally of such actions but morally you are guilty of doing such. First, we
have to define legal rights and moral rights. The former is defined as “rights which exist under the
rules of legal systems or by virtue of decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them” (Zalta,
2016). And the former is defined as a right that belongs to any moral entities who experience
freedom, rationality, and is sentient. The mentioned attributes basically predicated to human
beings. Thus, moral right pertains only to human beings (Gallenero, et al 2018). The fight for the
rights of a human being is twofold. First, you should consider your legal rights e.g. right to life,
right to vote, right to free speech, and so forth. Second, your moral right that is very encompassing
but sometimes experiencing an overlapped by the legal rights. In legal rights, you usually hear
that your rights stop when you step on somebody else’s rights. This is true, however, this is usually
realized in the legal parlance where proper court proceedings are done, e.g. in a lawsuit.
Consequently, when the moral rights, or let us say the fundamental rights you have, are being
stepped upon by somebody else’s legal rights, conflict ultimately arises. Let us take for example
the fundamental right to life -the moral right of an individual does not warrant to be upheld in a
self-defense situation where a perpetrator is killed because the victim defends oneself and fights
back the aggression. Although each individual possesses the moral right to life, in a legal context,
there is always the right to self-defense. Briefly, in protecting one’s life brings the possibility of
putting somebody else’s life in danger, and that is acceptable legally. The right to self-defense is
constitutional. In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Book 1 Chapter II Article. 11 states
that:
CHAPTER TWO
Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first
and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and
that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 1930).

Learning Tasks/Activities

1. List down 3 duties that you find difficult to accomplish as a student. For each duty, give
one or two ways on how you cope with the challenges.
1._________________________________________________________________

2._________________________________________________________________
3._________________________________________________________________

Common questions

Powered by AI

Kant’s philosophy addresses the conflict between legal and moral rights by prioritizing duties derived from the Categorical Imperative, but it also recognizes the necessity for legal frameworks that protect individual autonomy and rights. In situations of self-defense, legal rights such as self-defense align with Kantian ethics when acting upon the duty to preserve one’s life, as this act can be universally accepted if it respects human dignity and does not treat others merely as means . The legal recognition of self-defense, particularly where the Revised Penal Code outlines justifying circumstances, reflects a balance between maintaining moral duties and upholding practical legal rights .

The Categorical Imperative is a central concept in Kant's moral theory, reflecting the principle that one should 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law' . This means that in personal decision making, individuals should consider whether the rule guiding their action could be applied universally without contradiction. For example, if one considers stealing acceptable, they must also accept being a victim of theft under the same universal rule . This encourages decisions rooted in duty and rationality rather than personal inclinations or consequences.

The three essential elements of Kant’s Categorical Imperative are: 1) acting according to maxims that can be universal laws, meaning one should act only in ways that they would be willing for everyone to act ; 2) treating humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means to another end, which reinforces the intrinsic value of human life ; and 3) acting as if one is a law-making member of a 'kingdom of ends,' where each person’s actions contribute to a society where individuals are ends in themselves . Collectively, these elements guide individuals to perform moral actions based on duty, dignity, and the rational consideration of society's collective welfare.

Kant's Categorical Imperative informs legal interpretations regarding individual rights by providing a moral framework that respects the inherent dignity and autonomy of each person. It implies that legal rights should reflect universal principles that could be consented to by all individuals if they were rational members of a moral community. For instance, the principle that actions should treat humanity always as an end aligns with legal frameworks ensuring that individual rights are not infringed upon for utilitarian purposes. This perspective can influence legal debates on moral versus legal rights, advocating for laws that respect both moral obligations and legal permissibility .

Kant's Deontological Ethics fundamentally differs from Mill and Bentham's Utilitarianism in its basis for determining the morality of actions. Kant argues that actions are morally right if they are done from duty, regardless of the consequences, as per the Categorical Imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law' . In contrast, Mill and Bentham assert that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically the action’s capacity to produce the greatest happiness or utility. Thus, while Utilitarianism focuses on outcomes, Deontological Ethics emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties.

The Kingdom of Ends concept envisions a morally ideal society where each individual acts according to maxims that respect human dignity and can be universally legislated. Kant proposes that individuals should 'Act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of ends,' promoting a societal structure where actions are governed by a coherent set of moral laws . Practically, this can be applied to modern governance by developing policies that emphasize human rights and ethical principles, encouraging participatory governance where laws and policies reflect universal ethical standards and the collective rational will of society, thus fostering equality and moral integrity.

Philosophical tensions arise between Kant's duty-based ethics and consequentialism due to their differing focuses: deontology emphasizes adherence to moral duties, while consequentialism evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. These tensions impact ethical decision-making by creating situations where a duty-bound action (one guided by Kant's Categorical Imperative) may lead to unfavorable outcomes, challenging individuals to justify actions purely on principle. Conversely, consequentialism may justify morally dubious actions if they result in greater overall good. The impact on ethical decision-making involves navigating these moral crossroads, emphasizing universal moral duties over variable outcomes .

Kant's principle of treating humanity as an end in itself, rather than as a means, closely relates to modern societal concepts of individual rights by emphasizing the intrinsic value and dignity of each person. According to Kant, one should 'Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of any other human being, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end' . This philosophy supports the notion of inalienable human rights that serve as the foundation for many modern legal systems, ensuring individuals are not exploited or treated as mere tools for others’ purposes.

Kant's theory of moral rights interacts with contemporary legal rights frameworks by providing an ethical underpinning that emphasizes universal moral duties, which may not always align with legal systems focused on individual liberties and societal order. Potential conflicts arise when legal rights, such as those permitting self-defense, seemingly override individual moral rights, like the right to life, as illustrated in legal doctrines justifying acts like self-defense . These conflicts necessitate legal interpretations that respect Kantian dignity by ensuring that laws not only protect societal welfare but also do not contravene moral imperatives that uphold human worth and rational autonomy.

Kantian ethics emphasizes duty and rationality to provide a framework for determining moral actions in a consistent manner by advocating for actions that adhere to the Categorical Imperative. This involves determining if the maxim guiding one's action can be rationally willed as a universal law, and ensuring actions do not treat others merely as means but as ends in themselves . This consistent framework suggests that all moral actions can be evaluated based on their universal applicability and respect for human dignity, allowing for uniform moral judgments irrespective of the situation or personal consequences.

You might also like