AN EXPOSITION ON DEONTOLOGISM

BY

GEORGE FORDJOUR (DU/066)

OKEME KENNETH (DU/079)

OBASI VINCENT (DU/144)

AMEACHI GERALD (DU/093)

ZWAWUA GODWIN (DU/I04)

STANLEY OKEAHIALAM (AUD/002)

Being a Term Taper Submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Dominican

University, Samonda, Ibadan, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement of the Course.

ETHICS

(PHI 303)

LECTURER: REV. FR. PATRICK AKUNNE, OP

JANUARY, 2021
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2

2.0 NORMATIVE ETHICS........................................................................................................................3

3.0 DEONTOLOGY AND DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS.........................................................................4

3.1 Types of Deontological Ethical Theories...........................................................................................5

3.1.1 Act Deontological Theory...........................................................................................................5

3.1.2 Rule Deontological Theory.........................................................................................................7

3.2 Features of Deontological Ethical Theories.......................................................................................7

4.0 CRITIQUE OF DEONTOLOGISM....................................................................................................10

4.1 Positions for Deontologism.............................................................................................................10

4.1.1 Categorical Imperative Theories...............................................................................................10

4.1.2 Divine Command Theory.........................................................................................................12

4.2 Positions against Deontologism.......................................................................................................12

4.2.1 Consequentialist........................................................................................................................12

4.2.2 Argument based on Virtue ethics..............................................................................................13

4.2.3 Pragmatic Ethics.......................................................................................................................14

5.0 CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE....................................................................................................14

6.0 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION...............................................................................................16

1
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

1.0 INTRODUCTION
As rational beings, we almost always make dozens or even hundreds of decisions about

how we should behave in the right way, what we should do in certain situations, and what

criterion we are to employ in making decision about the rightness of our actions, amongst others.

These questions fall under the branch or area of ethical study known as Normative Ethics. For

majority of people known as Consequentialists, the rightness or the criterion for knowing the

rightness or wrongness of our actions are the consequence or the state of affairs they produce. 1

Another group focuses on whether or not an act promotes virtue, or whether or not doing it will

make you feel guilty as the measure for the rightness of our actions. Also, others hold and

believe that since all human beings have some duties to other human beings, the criterion for

moral rightness should be on duty.2 This later group referred to as the Deontologists, is our focus

in this paper.

In this work, our major focus is Deontologism, paying a keen attention to its major

arguments, in a bid to show its importance and relevance. We shall also show its weaknesses, by

considering some of the criticism issued against it. To actualize our aim, the following steps will

be employed by way of methodology: We shall begin by considering Normative Ethics. This will

usher us into the discussion on Deontologism. After which we shall consider some of the

critiques that have been issued against Deontologism. Immediately after this will be our

consideration of the contemporary relevance of Deontologism. After these, we shall evaluate and

then conclude.

2.0 NORMATIVE ETHICS

Normative Ethics is the branch of moral philosophy or ethics that is concerned with the

criteria for what is morally right and wrong.3 Ethics is the science of the moral rectitude of
1
Cf. Robert, L. H. 1993. Basic Moral Philosophy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Com. 52.
2
Cf. Lacey, A.R. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Taylor & Francis. 103.
3
Cf. Omoregbe, J. I. 2008. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Press. 21.
2
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

human act in accordance with the first principle of natural reason. 4 The word ‘normative’ is an

adjective which comes from the noun ‘norm’, which means a ‘standard’, or a ‘rule’, so moral

norms are standards or principles with which people are expected to comply. 5 It includes the

formulation of moral rules that have implications for what human actions, institutions and way of

life should be like. There are three broad categories of theories under Normative Ethics, namely;

Consequentialism or teleology, Deontologism, and Virtue Ethics. These three normative theories

focuses on the three different sets of ideas about how we should live.

Under Normative Ethics, these three are grouped under ethics of conduct and ethics of

character. On the one hand, ethics of conducts deals with the sort of actions that should be

performed; and under it, we have consequentialism which sees the right action as the one that

produces the most intrinsic good. Fletcher’s situation ethics is one type of consequentialist

theory; utilitarianism is another.6 Also, Deontology falls under the ethics of conduct which sees

the good as defined independently on right or rule. Natural moral law is seen by most people as

one type of deontological theory; Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative is another. 7 Ethics

of character on the other hand, deals with the sort of people we should be. Aristotle’s virtue

ethics is a type of teleological theory and is also character based.

3.0 DEONTOLOGY AND DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

Etymologically, the word ‘deontology’ comes from the Greek word Deon, meaning

‘obligation,’ ‘necessity,’ ‘that which is binding.’8 Generally speaking, these words translate to

‘duty’, so deontological theories basically inform one of what one’s moral duties are.

4
Cf. Leibell, J. Francis.1926. Reading in Ethics. Chicago: Loyola University Press.4.
5
Cf. Oxford Advance Leaners Dictionary (2021), s.v. “Norm.”
6
Cf. Hodder Education. 4 Normative Ethical Theories: Natural Moral Law. www.hoddereducation.co.uk>media,
retrieved on 4th January, 2021.
7
Cf. Hodder Education. 4 Normative Ethical Theories: Natural Moral Law. www.hoddereducation.co.uk>media,
retrieved on 4th January, 2021.
8
Cf. Muel Kaptein and Johan Wempe. October 2017. “The General Theories of Ethics and the Interrogative Role of
Integrity Theory.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.
3
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

Deontological ethical systems hold that the moral worth of an action lies in your conforming to

duties and rules, as opposed to considering the consequences of what you do.9 In other words,

deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon and strict adherence to

independent moral rules or duties. This implies that, we have to understand what our moral

duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. Therefore for the deontologist,

when we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are

behaving immorally.

Alongside obligations, duties and rules, deontological theories also consider ‘rights’,

because your obligation to follow rules and duties implies that there is an intrinsic built-in value

of doing so.10 For instance, if one follow the rule, ‘Do not kill’, then one implicitly have the right

not to be murdered. In summary, Deontologism is a school of thought in Ethics that is concerned

with right action. Put differently, it concerns itself with doing the right thing simply because it is

the right thing to do. Thus, it focus on whether ethical decisions per se are right or wrong,

regardless of the consequences or intentions of those ethical decisions.

Having considered the isness of deontology and deontological ethics, in furthering our

discussion therefore on the deontological theories of ethics, we shall employ the following steps;

(i) Types of Deontological Ethical Theories, (ii) Features of Deontological Ethical Theories.

3.1 Types of Deontological Ethical Theories

Deontological ethical theories can be divided into two main types, namely; Act

Deontological Theories and Rule Deontological theories.

9
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu./archives/winter2020/entries/ethics-dentological/>
10
Hodder Education. 4 Normative Ethical Theories: Natural Moral Law. www.hoddereducation.co.uk>media,
retrieved on 19/01/21
4
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

3.1.1 Act Deontological Theory

Act Deontological theory is the theory that focuses on the action or duty of an agent. This

is the first type of deontological moral theory and is more of duty-based rather than right-based.

This theory is ascribed to Immanuel Kant. For Kant, the central radix of morality concerns

action, be it obligatory or reasons of ought. According to Kant, actions that we ought to do must

be understood in two senses, namely; if conditional and unconditional.11 An “if conditional”

ought action means the kind of action one ought to perform in order for something else to happen

or for some type of reward. But the unconditional ought actions are the kinds of action we ought

to perform without any consideration of merit. It is in this sense of having no regard to reward or

merit that Act-Deontologists view morality.12

All Act Deontological Theories are properly characterized as theories premised on

people’s duty and actions. According to Jeremy Bentham, it is a theory that has as its object, the

happiness of each individual which is dependent on his or her conduct or action. 13 Since, act

deontological theories focus on actions and actions majorly relates to an agent, the act

deontological theories are mostly referred to as Agent-Centered Deontological Theories.14 These

deontological theories allows an individual or an agent to act or not to act in a certain situation or

ways. That is, they grant an agent-relative reason, obligation, and permission to perform any

action.

11
Cf. Shandon, L. G. 2001. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy
Journal. Vol. II, issue. 7..
12
Cf. Shandon, L. G. 2001. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy
Journal. Vol. II, issue. 7..
13
Cf. Amnon, Goldworth (ed.) “Deontology together with A Table of the Spring of Action and the Article on
Utilitarianism”, in F., Rosen (gen. ed.). The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham. New York: Oxford University
Press Inc. 124.
14
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
5
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

By an agent-relative reason we mean an objective reason relative to the agent whose

reason it is to act in a certain way and it need not constitute a reason for anyone else. 15Also, an

agent-relative obligation is an obligation for a particular agent to take or refrain from taking

some action; and because it is agent-relative, the obligation does not necessarily permits anyone

else a reason to support that action.16 Each parent, for example, is commonly thought to have

such special obligations to his/her child, obligations not shared by anyone else. In the same vein,

an agent-relative permission is a permission for some agent to do some act even though others

may not be permitted to aid that agent in the doing of his permitted action. 17 Each parent, to

revert to the same example, is commonly thought to be permitted (at the least) to save his own

child even at the cost of not saving two other children to whom he has no special relation. Agent-

centered theories and the agent-relative reasons on which they are based enjoin each of us to do

or not to do certain things.

Therefore, at the heart of act deontological theories is the idea of agency. For most

scholars, the moral plausibility of these theories is rooted here. By agency they hold that,

morality is intensely personal; in the sense that we are each enjoined to keep our own moral

house in order.18 Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions cause or enable

other agents to do evil; the focus of our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of

moral taint.19 These theories includes; situational ethics and existentialism.

15
Cf. Michael, Ridge. “Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral vs. Agent-Relative,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2017. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-agent/>
16
Cf. Michael, Ridge. “Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral vs. Agent-Relative,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2017. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
17
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
18
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
19
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
6
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

3.1.2 Rule Deontological Theory

Rule-Deontological Theory is properly characterized as theory premised on people’s

rights. That is; Rule Deontological Theory is rights-based rather than duty-based. 20 Nonetheless,

most scholars speak of Rights theory as one particular duty-based theory of ethics. For such

scholars, since a right is a justified claim against another person’s behaviour, it implies that

rights and duties are related, in that the rights of one person imply the duty of someone else to

uphold that right.21 For the rule deontologists therefore, we live in a world of moral rules, and

such rules are mostly in the imperative and can also be expressed by using the moral word,

‘ought’: these actions ought or ought not to be performed. Rule Deontological Theories includes

Categorical Imperative Theories also known as Kantian morality and Divine Command/ Natural

Law Theories.

3.2 Features of Deontological Ethical Theories

Like other normative ethical theories, deontology has some characteristics or features that

distinguishes it from other theories. These include, its non-consequentialist nature; its claim that

morality and ethics are to be understood as systems of rules meant to govern and guide conduct;

and its agent-relative as opposed to agent-neutral character, among others. 22 We shall expatiate

each of these features in the following paragraphs.

To begin with; the feature of non-consequentialism. Deontological ethical theories are

known as non-consequentialist theory. This means that, they place the emphasis on the decision

or action itself and not the end result or consequence. That is; they emphasize on the motivations,

principles, or ideals underlying the decision or action rather than being concerned with the

20
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
21
Traer R. 2009. Doing Environmental Ethics, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 104.
22
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
7
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

outcomes or consequences of that decision or action. 23 This reasoning is founded on the

desirability of principle, be it duties or rights- to act in a given situation. 24

Hence, they see the

right as prior to the good. Extremists may argue that, if an action is not accord with right, it may

not be undertaken, no matter even the good that it might bring.25 This is one of the major grounds

that differentiate them from the consequentialists who will argue for the rightness or wrongness

of an action on the ground of the value, goodness, or consequences of this action.26

Moreover, its claim that morality and ethics are to be understood as systems of rules

meant to govern and guide conduct. This character relates more to the second type of

deontological ethical theories, namely Rule-Deontological Theories. By this feature,

deontologists claim that, morality and ethics are to be understood as systems of rules meant to

govern and guide conduct. They posit three different kinds of rules as relevant to this end,

namely; rules that morally forbid an action, rules that make an action morally obligatory, and

rules that make an action morally permissible.27

Rules that forbid an action supply us with a duty not to act in some way. It is said to

supply us with negative duties in the sense that, as a rule, it supplies us with a duty not to act in

some way; for example, ‘don’t make a lying promise’ or ‘thou shalt not kill.’ 28 It is in this sense

that the negative duties is understood, that is, what we should not do. Also, 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; for example, ‘help others where you can’, keep holy

23
Cf. Holmes, R.L. 1993. Basic Moral Philosophy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Com. 52.
24
Traer, R. 2009. Doing Environmental Ethics, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 104.
25
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
26
Cf. Julia, D. 2012. Consequentialism. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 5.
27
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
28
Cf. Shandon, L. G. 2001. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy
Journal. Vol. II, issue. 7.
8
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

the Sabbath day.’29 The positive duties show the duties we should do. Furthermore, rules that

make an action morally permissible are the once that favors supererogatory actions;

supererogatory actions are morally permissible but go above and beyond the call of duty. 30

Examples include running into a burning building to save a stranger or giving away all you own

to charity. It is necessary for us to note that, 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.

Furthermore; it is mostly agent-relative than agent-neutral. This particular feature

relates more to the first type of deontological ethical theories namely the Act-Deontological

Theories. This theories are agent-relative as opposed to agent-neutral, in other words, a moral

rule of deontological ethical theories, most times if not always, must refer to a particular agent. 31

Each parent, for example, is commonly thought to have such special obligations or duty to

his/her child, obligations not shared by anyone else. In other words, one presumably has a duty

to take care of one’s family but it is not so clear he/she has a duty to take care of other families.

Comparatively, this also differentiates it from consequentialism which is typically supposed to

be agent-neutral, because of its 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.

Predictably, this feature of deontological theories holds that some duties are indexed to particular

agents, such that morality makes particular demands upon particular agents. 32 This may explain

why so many deontologists are concerned with autonomy; an agent who is autonomous has the

29
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
30
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
31
Cf. Michael, Ridge. “Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral vs. Agent-Relative,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2017. The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-agent/>
32
Cf. Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
9
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

power and ability to act voluntarily and to decide what he/she shall do. 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.

From the discussion so far, we can by way of summary posit deontology in these four

major forms; firstly as an ethical theory that gives precedence or priority to the rightness of an

action rather than the goodness of it. Secondly, an ethical theory that is concerned with the duties

and obligations of a moral agent. Thirdly, an ethical theory that has restrictions on permissible

actions. And lastly as an ethical theory that is agent centered.33

4.0 CRITIQUE OF DEONTOLOGISM

4.1 Positions for Deontologism
4.1.1 Categorical Imperative Theories
Categorical Imperative Theories are one of the major contributions of Immanuel Kant to

the field of Ethics. With these theories, Kant presents us with a method on how to determine

whether particular act is to be considered morally right, or morally wrong. For him, the source of

moral justification is the categorical imperative. 34 He explains an imperative in two ways, either

as hypothetical or categorical. For Kant, an imperative is said to be hypothetical if it serves as a

means to something else.35 Also, an imperative is said to be categorical if its resulting action is

conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of

itself conforms to reason.36In other words, he says that in order for an act to be categorically

imperative, it must be thought to be good in itself and in conformity to reason. These are the

commands one must follow regardless of one’s desire. Kant believe that there is only one
33
Cf. Nathan, W. 2020. Virtue Rediscovered. London: The Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group Inc. 43.
34
Cf. Kant, Immanuel, “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” in Anthony Serafini (Ed.). 1989. Ethics
and Social Concern. New York: Paragon House Publishers. 31.
35
Cf. Immanuel, Kant. “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” Anthony Serafini (Ed.).1989. Ethics and
Social Concern. 31.
36
Cf. Immanuel, Kant. “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” Anthony Serafini (Ed.).1989. Ethics and
Social Concern. 31.

10
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

principle of morality, but that it can be given in three different formulation; the first is about the

conformity to a universal law, the second is about persons as an ends in themselves, and the third

is about persons as moral legislators.37 We shall consider the first two formulations.

The first categorical imperative, says that, we should act only on that maxim whereby we

can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. 38 That is, an act becomes

imperative or commanded when it ought to be applied to everyone. A categorical imperative

would command you to do X inasmuch as X is intrinsically right, that is, right in and of itself,

aside from any other considerations and no “ifs,” or conditions attached to them. 39 The second

version holds that, we should act so that we treat humanity, whether in own person or in that of

another, always as an end and never as a means only.40

In summary, Kant argues that for an act to be good in itself (intrinsically) and good

without qualification, then such act must proceed from “good will” 41 and must qualify to stand as

a universal law which is not just a means, but also an end in itself. 42 Hence, the best argument

supporting deontological ethics is that its nature allows for the avoidance of ‘the ends justify the

means’ being used to justify immoral behaviour. Because deontology states that one shouldn’t lie

because lying is wrong, rather than one shouldn’t lie because it might hurt someone or have

negative consequences, the ends are irrelevant.

37
Cf. William F. Lawhead. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. USA: Eve
Howard, 2002. 342.
38
Cf. Immanuel, Kant. “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” ed. Anthony Serafini, Ethics and Social
Concern. 31.
39
Cf. Miller, L. (Ed.). 1992. Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 3rd ed. Colorado: McGraw-Hill,
Inc. 462.
40
Cf. William F. Lawhead. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. USA: Eve
Howard. 343.
41
Kant, Immanuel. 1785. “Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical.” § 1
in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
42
Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10th ed.), translated by T. K.
Abbott. Project Gutenberg. 23.
11
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

4.1.2 Divine Command Theory

The central view of this theory is that an action is right if it conforms to the

commandments of God.43 The Divine Command Theory agrees with the deontologists that an

action is only right if it proceeds from duty. Immanuel Kant however disagrees with this theory

on the point that he thinks that, it is not God’s command that makes the moral norm a universal

law, but man himself acting as a rational being. 44 According to the English philosopher Ralph

Cudworth those who proposed various versions of this moral theory and held that moral

obligations arise from God's commands includes William of Ockham, René Descartes, and 18th-

century Calvinists.45

4.2 Positions against Deontologism

4.2.1 Consequentialist
The first group of critiques against Deontologism is that of the Consequentialists. By

upholding that the rightness or wrongness of an action must depend on the result or consequence

of the action, consequentialists argue that deontology is too rigid. For them, deontological ethics

can lead people to act in ways which bring about disaster or bad consequences. For example, if

one has a duty not to lie, but following that duty means that somebody dies in consequence, the

value of the rule, ‘do not lie’, can be questioned. A consequentialist moral ethics would clearly

direct one to lie and save the lives, but a deontological philosophy would require one to tell the

truth. For the consequentialist, this clearly is not the right thing to do, and thus illuminates a

glaring flaw in deontological ethical theory.46

More so, they sees deontologism as inadequate and weak, and reject it on the ground of

the conflicts that seem to exist between certain duties, and between certain rights. Intuitively, we
43
Wierenga, Edward. 1983. A Defensible Divine Command Theory. Noûs 17(3):387–407.
44
Cf. Robert, L. Holmes. 1993. Basic Moral Philosophy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Com. 136.
45
Cudworth, Ralph. 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, edited by S. Hutton.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46
Cf. J. Varner, B.A. Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Greensboro (2018). https://www.quora.com/What
are-the-best-arguments-for-and-against-deontology. Accessed 6/1/21.
12
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

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, and that, the conflict might be between duties of

equal moral importance. How do we act in such situations? For them, deontologists will answer

this by appeal to the best consequent each can produce. Hence, they reduce deontology to

consequentialism.

4.2.2 Argument based on Virtue ethics

Additionally, proponents of Virtue ethics see Deontologism as inadequate. Contrary to

the claim of the deontologists that only judgments about right action are basic in morality, and

that the virtuousness of traits is always derivative in some way from the prior rightness of

actions; virtue ethics opines conversely that only judgments about virtue are basic in morality,

and that the rightness of actions is always somehow derivative from the virtuousness of traits. 47

Justin Oakley in his critique of Kantian deontology and demarcation of virtue ethics insist that an

action is right if and only if it is what an agent with a virtuous character would do in the

circumstances.48 Contrary to the deontological priority of rightness over goodness, he insists that

goodness is prior to rightness, and that virtues are irreducibly plural intrinsic goods. 49 Aristotle’s

Nichomenian Ethics provides the bases for most of the arguments from virtue ethics.

4.2.3 Pragmatic Ethics

Again, most proponents of Pragmatic Ethics hold and argue that the importance of each

person’s agency to himself/herself has a narcissistic flavor to it that seems unattractive to many.

It seemingly justifies each of us keeping our own moral house in order even at the expense of the

world becoming much worse. They argue, for example, that failing to prevent a death one could

47
Cf. Velazco y Trianosky, Gregory. 1990. “What is Virtue Ethics All About?” American Philosophical Quarterly,
27, no. 4: 1990. 43.
48
Cf. Oakley, Justin. 1996. “The Varieties of Virtue Ethics.” Ratio, 9, no. 2: 128–52.
49
Cf. Wood, Nathan. 2020. Virtue Rediscovered. London: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 6-8.
13
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

easily prevent is as blameworthy as causing a death, so that a morality that radically

distinguishes the two is implausible. Alternatively, such critics argue on conceptual grounds that

no clear distinctions can be drawn in these matters, that foreseeing with certainty is

indistinguishable from intending, hence omitting is one kind of causing. 50 Though Pragmatic

ethics too have been severely criticized as conflating descriptive ethics (describing the way

people do make moral judgment) and normative ethics (The way they should make moral

judgments).51

5.0 CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

Having considered Deontologism with its weaknesses, which was seen through its

criticisms, we shall now consider its strength by way of its relevance in the world today. To this

end, some of the areas we shall consider are; Government, the field of medical science, business

environment, our daily life experiences, amongst others.

To set the ball rolling, Deontology plays a key role in Government; concerning its

decision making processes. Often in government, the actions that are considered to be right thing

to do are the once that comes with the best consequence. 52 Which implies that the end justifies

the means. But Deontology helps the government to realize that, the end (be it good or bad) does

not justify the means especially in situations that involves human beings. A case study example

will be the End SARS protest in Nigeria and the killing at Lekki toll gate. The government of

Nigerian may have had a good end or goal of restoring peace at Lekki toll gate during the End-

SARS protesters by killing protesters through the instrumentalities of the Nigerian Army, on the

20th of October, 2020. As we have said, the end may have been good, that is; to restore peace to

the city of Lagos and the nation at large. However, going by the second imperative, the means

50
Scheffler, J., 2012. “Disconnection and Responsibility.” Legal Theory, 18:399-435.
51
Cf. Liszka, J. 2005. “What is pragmatic ethics?” american-philosophy.org. Accessed, 4th January, 2021
52
Mulgan, T,. 2001 The Demands of Consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 3.
14
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

which was employed by the government was wrong since it failed to recognized the fact that

people are ends in themselves and not a mere means to an end.

Secondly, in the field of medical science, Deontology plays a major role in addressing

issues in medical ethics. The second version of the categorical imperative that holds that; we

should act so that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, always as

an end and never as a means only, mostly serves as a guide in scientific/ medical decisions. 53 A

good example will be the issue of using black Americans to experiment Syphilis in 1932 without

their consent and even knowledge of the hazard that can come from it. 54 Using Deontology as a

guide, we can raise some important questions about the Covid-19 vaccines in circulation and the

ones yet to be made. It will help scientists to know that people are ends in themselves and in their

quest to know the authenticity of their vaccines through experiments, they need their consent. It

will also guide the individual who wishes to consent, to be means on his/her duty as a moral

agent.

Moreover, Deontology plays as important role in business environment. In the field of

business, Deontology provides guide or an answer to partiality in employment, sales and

discharging of employees.55 From the ethical point of view, business organization should be a

moral community where each member of the organization stands in a moral relationship towards

other members. Following this theory, it behooves the managers to respect the humanity of all

the persons in the organization, be it an employee or coworker and should not see or use them as

a means to an end. Hence, the motive for employment, sale and discharge of employees must be

pure.

53
Cf. William F. Lawhead. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. USA: Eve
Howard. 343.
54
Cf. Friedrich, Heubel and Nikola, Biller. 2005. The Contribution of Kantian Moral Theory to Contemporary
Medical Ethics: A Critical Analysis. Medicine, Health care and Philosophy. 8. 5-18.
55
Cf. Norman E., Bowie. A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics. Philosophical Investigations. (2010). 3-16
15
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

6.0 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

In this work, we have been able to realize that, Deontologism is a school of thought that

holds that all human beings have some duties to other human beings, and that, the criterion for

moral rightness should be on duty or set rules. By paying a keen attention to its major arguments,

we have been able to show that Deontology plays an important role regarding our actions and

decisions as moral agents. But these, do not remove the fact that, it also has its weaknesses which

has been made clear in our consideration of some of the criticism issued against it.

In actualizing our aim, we began by considering the whatness of Normative Ethics.

Which ushered us into the discussion on Deontologism. After which we considered some of the

critiques that have been issued against Deontologism. Immediately after this we considered the

contemporary relevance of Deontologism. Consequently, we recommend that Government and

other policy makers should take deontological views more seriously to achieve a better society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Cudworth, Ralph. 1996. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. Hutton, S

(Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Driver, Julia. 2012. Consequentialism. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

16
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

Frankena, William. 1963. Ethics. United States of America: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Goldworth, Amnon. (Ed.) “Deontology together with A Table of the Spring of Action and the

Article on Utilitarianism.” In F., Rosen (gen. Ed.). The Collected Works of Jeremy

Bentham. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Holmes L., Robert. 1993. Basic Moral Philosophy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing

Com.

Kant, Immanuel. “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative.” In Anthony Serafini (Ed.).

1989. Ethics and Social Concern. New York: Paragon House Publishers.

Lawhead, F. William F. 2002. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

Philosophy. USA: Eve Howard.

Lacey, A.R. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Leibell, Jane, Francis.1926. Reading in Ethics. Chicago: Loyola University Press.

L., Miller, (Ed.). 1992. Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 3rd ed. Colorado:

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Omoregbe I., Joseph. 2008. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Press.

R., Traer. 2009. Doing Environmental Ethics, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Wood, Nathan. 2020. Virtue Rediscovered. London: The Rowman and Littlefield Publishing

Group Inc.

Kingsmill, Abbott Thomas. (Trans). 1889. The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics.

Oxford Advance Leaners Dictionary (2021), s.v. “Norm.”

Journals

Bowie, E. Norman. A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics. Philosophical Investigations.

(2010). 3-16
17
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

Gregory, Velazco y Trianosky. 1990. “What is Virtue Ethics All About?” American

Philosophical Quarterly, 27, no. 4: 1990.

L. G., Shandon. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. The Examined Life On-Line

Philosophy Journal. Vol. II, issue. 7. (2001).

Muel Kaptein and Johan Wempe. There General Theories of Ethics and the Interrogative Role of

Integrity Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. (October 2017) 10.

Mulgan, Tim. 2001. The Demands of Consequentialism. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Nikola, Biller. Friedrich, and Heubel. The Contribution of Kantian Moral Theory to

Contemporary Medical Ethics: A Critical Analysis. Medicine, Health care and Philosophy. 8

(2005). 5- 18.

Oakley, Justin. The Varieties of Virtue Ethics. Ratio, 9, no. 2 (1996) 128–52.

Scheffler, J. Disconnection and Responsibility. Legal Theory, 18: (2012). 399-435.

Wierenga, Edward. 1983. A Defensible Divine Command Theory. Noûs 17(3):387–407.

Internet Material

Hodder Education. 4 Normative Ethical Theories: Natural Moral Law.

www.hoddereducation.co.uk>media, retrieved on 4th January, 2021.

Larry, Alexander and Michael Moore. “Deontology,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) 2020. The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

URL=https://plato.stanford.edu./archives/winter2020/entries/ethics-dentological/

Liszka, James. 2005. “What is pragmatic ethics?” american-philosophy.org. Accessed January 5,

2021.

J. Varner, B.A. Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Greensboro (2018).

https://www.quora.com/What are-the-best-arguments-for-and-against-deontology.

Accessed 6/1/21.
18
 Group ONE (1): An Exposition On Deontologism

Ridge, Michael. “Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral vs. Agent-Relative,” Edward N. Zalta (Ed.)

2017.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-agent/>

19