Deontology and Deontological Ethics Root word: deon from the Greek word meaning, roughly, one must;

deontological ethics are especially concerned with rules and duties and obligations Three features of deontological ethical theories: 1) Deontological ethical theories are non-consequentialist Consequentialists will argue that whether an action is right or wrong depends upon the consequences of this action Deontologists deny this thesis; deontologists argue that it is not necessarily the case that an actions rightness or wrongness depends upon the consequences (for example, some right actions do not bring about the best consequences and some wrong actions that produce good consequences ought not to be performed) Rawls: the right is prior to the good

2) Deontological ethical theories claim morality and ethics are to be understood as systems of rules meant to govern and guide conduct Moral rules take the form of commands or imperatives; three different kinds of rules are relevant 1) Rules that (morally) forbid an action 2) Rules that make an action (morally) obligatory 3) Rules that make an action (morally) permissible (note: an action may be permissible because some rule says the action is permissible, or the action may be permissible because no rule makes it obligatory or forbidden Rules that forbid an action supply negative duties insofar as rules that forbid an action supply us with a duty not to act in some way (e.g., dont make a lying promise or thou shalt not kill) Rules that make an action obligatory supply us with positive duties insofar as rules that make an action obligatory supply us with a duty to act in some way (e.g., help others where you can, keep holy the Sabbath day) Some actions are supererogatory ; supererogatory actions are morally permissible but go above and beyond the call of duty (e.g., giving away all you own to charity, running into a burning building to save a stranger)

3) Deontological ethical theories are agent-relative as opposed to agentneutral; according to deontological ethical theories, at least sometimes, a moral rule must refer to a particular agent For example, I presumably have a duty to take care of my family but it is not so clear you have a duty to take care of my family or that I have a duty to take care of yours Deontological ethical theories do not just claim that torture is a bad thing or that torture produces bad consequences but rather that torturing ought not to be done and that implies that you have a duty not to torture

note: as we shall see, consequentialist ethical theories are typically supposed to be agent-neutral, insofar as consequentialist ethical theories only claim that some state of affairs would be the best consequences to realize, not necessarily that anyone in particular has a duty to realize those consequences (e.g., perhaps the best state of affairs would be that someone saves the drowning child, but it does not necessarily follow that you have a duty to save that child) The essential feature of deontological theories is that some duties are indexed to particular agents, such that morality makes particular demands upon particular agents. This may explain why so many deontologists are concerned with autonomy (from the Greek auto and nomos , meaningself law); an agent who is autonomous has the power and ability to act voluntarily and to decide what she shall do Insofar as we are autonomous we can decide what actions we will perform or not, and given some of our decisions or actions, we inherit or acquire different duties or responsibilities (we get married, we have children) or we can abandon some duties and responsibilities (we divorce a spouse, we drop out of college, we sell ourselves into slavery). Deontological ethical theories can make sense of the thought that some moral rules only apply to some moral agents: some moral rules are agent-relative.

What a Deontological Ethical Theory Might Look Like Absolutism vs. non-Absolutism A deontological ethical theory may claim that the relevant moral rules and duties are absolute such that those rules and duties admit of no exceptions

Immanuel Kant, for example, (in a horribly titled paper called On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropic Concerns argued that it is always wrong to make a lying promise, no matter what seemingly good consequences could be derived from making that lying promise or a deontological ethical theory may claim that the relevant moral rules and duties are defeasible, such that those rules and duties supply very strong or weighty reasons to perform an action or to refrain from acting, but they are not necessarily decisive in determining what is or is not to be done

W. D. Ross, for example, argued that some of our moral duties are prima facie (or pro tanto duties, such that we have a duty to fulfill that duty unless we also have a stronger duty to perform some other competing action (e.g., we have a prima facie duty not to make a lying promise, unless lying is required to fulfill the stronger duty of saving the life of another person) Many Rules vs. Very Few No guarantee how many rules will be included in a deontological ethical theory; the Ten Commandments constitutes an early Judeo-Christian ethics Alternatively, an ethical theory might have a great many more rules (a superTorah), or an ethical theory might have only one rule (e.g., the Golden Rule or Everything is allowed)

Demanding vs. non-Demanding Rules A deontological ethical theory might have rules that are very demanding and limit what we can morally do

One might claim we are obligated and have a positive duty to give to charity until we are almost destitute (as a non-deonological philosopher Peter Singer does) or the rules might demand very little of us and have few limitations on what we can morally do

The relevant moral rules might be what Robert Nozick called side-constraints, such that the only moral rules are those that forbid violating the rights of others, for example, while no other actions are forbidden or made obligatory

Objections to Deontology 1) Objection from Conflict: Intuitively, we can have multiple conflicting duties as in the case of moral dilemmas; surely there are cases in which we must violate some duty or other (e.g., cases in which we have made multiple promises that we cannot simultaneously fulfill) Note: appealing to prima facie or pro tanto duties wont really help; the conflict might be between duties of equal moral importance 2) Objection from Implausibility: Deontological ethical theories appear to be inattentive to the contexts and circumstances of a situation; a deontological theory that forbids lying in all contexts and circumstances is simply implausible Note: Kant forbade lying in all circumstances, including circumstances in which one might be tempted to lie to the axe murderer; many philosophers have argued this is a reductio argument against Kantian deontology Note: Ross-style deontology might be able to avoid this objection, but the first objection remains 3) Objection from Absent-Authority: Deontologists must, first, explain why they focus on these rules rather than some others, and, second, explain where the authority of those moral rules comes from (alternatively, not just any rules count as moral rules: we think the rules of morality are weighty and inescapable in a way that the rules of baseball are not. But what explains the difference?)