Historical Origin of Deontological Ethics

The historical origin of this particular moral theory can be traced back to the early beginning of
human civilization, “at a time when the word of the chief, or king, [or God or any other recognized authority
for that matter] was given unconditionally and without invitation to appeal on the basis of consequences”
(Solomon & Greene 1999:19)

Here, the commands or edict of the ones in authority and power are something that a re taken and
obeyed without any further question or objection. Once the commands and orders are given and handed
out from above, everyone below is expected to follow unconditionally and “without any qualification.”
Obedience is something absolute or categorical.

Consequently, as mentioned, one is not expected to pose any question but is asked to take the
command as it is given. No if and no but. “It just tells one what one must do or not do” (Solomon & Higgins
2017:262). It is as simple as that. Thus, the CEO, the State, the Party, the master, or the chieftain, is the law.

This kind of theory is sometimes called Deontological (from the Greek root word “dein” or “deon”
meaning “to be obligated,” or simply “duty”). In this kind of theory or philosophy, an act or conduct is
considered good or right, thus justified morally, not by showing that is has good and beneficial
consequences or effects but by virtue of its being an action that emanates from a sense of duty or moral
obligation.

Due to its central emphasis on the significance and value of duty or obligation as the main
motivation or intention in human actions, this theory in ethics has also come to be known in philosophy as
Deontological theory or Deontological ethics. In fact, Deontological or simply Duty ethics, recognizes only
those actions that are done out of pure duty as the ones having moral worth. Everything else does not given
an act any moral value or ethical significance.

Kant’s Major Contribution to Deontological Theory

If one tries to scan the entire history of ethical philosophy, perhaps one cannot find a more avid
defender of Deontological theory in modern times than the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804), a philosopher whose remarkable contributions to the history of philosophical thought put
him on the same level with the greatest of the greats among the world’s foremost thinkers.

For some, Kant is recognized as the most important philosopher who has ever lived. The entirety of
his philosophic corpus, in the words of an author, is “brilliant, profound, rich, complex, and fascinating”
(Ellin 1995:260). It is said, with fairness that no other thinkers has contributed as many important and
brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics as Kant.

The Good Will: The Heart of Kant’s Ethics

Kant claims that what makes an act right/good and wrong/bad does not depend on its results or
consequences, since all these are simply beyond one’s control – hence a matter of luck or accident. (Things
usually turn out the way they are, not the way we want and expect them to be.) Thus, the consequences of
actions are entirely out of our hands. Hence, for him, morality, as the sole and exclusive domain of rational
beings, should be something of which one should have total control. If one is indeed fully accountable of
his action and conduct, then chance or luck should be taken out of the equation.

This, he believes, can only be achieved by appealing to some universal rational ethical principle –
an ethical principle that is in the form of a “maxim” (a moral rule or principle, that serves as a rational guide
for one’s action) that guides human actions at all times and in all situations. The center of Kant’s ethical
philosophy is his primary emphasis on the importance of reason and the unqualified rational nature of
moral principles. Such philosophy is indeed “a strict, hardheaded, and uncompromising view of morality”
(Solomon & Greene 1999:249).

• “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good
without qualification, except a good will.” (Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals published in 1785).
• Good will – always motivated by a genuine desire to do what is right and just; is based on the
categorical imperative; driven by greater good for the well-being of others.

Having a good will, or rather acting in good will means doing an act with the right intentions or
motives in accordance with the right maxims or principles, doing one’s duty or obligation for its own sake
(“Duty for duty’s sake”) rather than for personal gain or self-interest. This goes against the ethics of
utilitarianism, which prioritizes the consequences that one can achieve in acting. In Kant, morality is
primarily, if not solely, a matter of motive or intention and not a matter of what one can gain or achieve in
acting.

If one’s motive in doing an act is good and noble, regardless of its consequences or result (even if
they are not beneficial to you), then it’s good and thus your conduct is morally praiseworthy. You ought to
be congratulated for doing “the right thing.” As far as ethics of Kant is concerned, that’s all that matters.

Hence, the worth of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects that one can
derive from the act. This is the heart of Kant’s ethics – doing the good because it is good, nothing more and
nothing less. The good here is the one that you ought to do. You simply have to do the good because it is
good. It is good because it is a moral duty for everyone to do the good. Kant’s ethics is an ethics that is
primarily based on the good will. The good will is good if it does its duty out of pure reverence to the moral
law.

• Duty over Inclination

1. Kant reacted to David Hume who held that human beings act primarily on inclination
(doing the thing that one feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists), Kant considers
such an account of morality totally mistaken. He believes that “a person is only acting
morally only when he suppresses his/her feelings and inclinations and does that which
he/she is obliged to do” (Popkin & Stroll 1993:36)
2. The only act that is worthy to be called moral is an act that is done not out of
inclination but one that is done out of duty. “Doing one’s duty is doing something that
one is not inclined or willing to do, but that he/she does because he/she recognizes
that he/she ought to do it; an obligation exists and he/she must fulfill it” (Popkin &
Stroll 1993:36).
i. For example: a student who studies only because he is afraid to fail in a
particular subject (and this would mean not being able to graduate) is not
a moral person. Nor the reason for studying is that he is merely inclined to.
 3. Thus, to be a good person, in Kant’s view, is to act from a sense of duty alone. One
should not be motivated by any other reason except what emanates from this sense
of moral obligation. Only and only then that one can truly say that he is acting morally
and deserves to be called a moral person.

• Duty is Superior to Happiness

1. If being a good person, according to Kant, requires us to do what is right out of a sense
of duty or moral obligation, “our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that
promote pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the utilitarians claim, since that would
make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our
desires” (Wall 2003:37).
2. And if the consequences of our actions are the ones that give them moral worth, then
morality becomes contingent to something outside itself. In that case, morality would
become not an end in itself but just a means to an end that would leave us without a
stable and firm foundation.
3. For Kant, as we said, the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by its
outcomes or results but by its intrinsic property.
i. For example: lying is morally wrong not because it results in the experience
of pain instead of pleasure [say we will be scolded by our parents and will
be grounded for a week] but because it is wrong in itself regardless of the
consequences. The same goes true for breaking a promise, cheating and the
like” (Wall 2003:37).

The Categorical Imperative

For Kant, our reason has the capacity to know a priori the moral commands. These commands are
also called imperatives. Imperatives are commands not by someone else not even God (although God’s
commands are also good) but the point is as rational beings we cannot disobey what our rationality
expresses.
• How do we know that these commands or these categorical imperatives?
1. FOUNDATIONS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
i. Pure reason – The basis of your decision is not on others but on your own
reason or rationality.
ii. Good Will – This is the assumption that even if we are not perfect there is
this goodness in all of us because we as human beings are rational and to
do what is right and just.
iii. Respect the Law – Our rational nature is inclined to follow the law, with
the assumption that laws are for the common good.
iv. Duty – This is the only motivation in being a moral person. We must be
good because that is what we are supposed to be. “Doing what is the right
thing to do.”
a. Categorical Imperative denotes an absolute, unconditional
requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is
justified as an end in itself. It is an ultimate commandment of reason
from which all duties and obligations derive. E.g. don’t harm others,
don’t kill, don’t steal, help those in need etc.
b. Hypothetical Imperatives tell us how to act in order to achieve a
specific goal and the commandment of reason applies only
 conditionally, e.g. "I must study to get a degree." Hypothetical
imperatives tell us which are the best means to achieve our ends.
They do not, however, tell us which are the ends we should choose.
(Deontology, Discussion by Fr. Garrido)

• Why Categorical Imperative is considered as Duty? Or an Obligation?

1. Kant argues that it is a duty to act in accordance with the categorical imperative,
because it is a universal moral principle that applies to all rational beings. This means
that we have a moral obligation to act in ways that are consistent with the categorical
imperative, and to refrain from acting in ways that would undermine its universal
applicability.
2. For Kant, we are good not because of “heteronomous morality” (in which a person
obey rules primarily to avoid punishment or seek rewards, rather than understanding
and accepting the rules of their own sake. [mahadlok tas ginoo or sa mga authorities
basin bunalan or prisohon or silotan ta maong magbinuotan ta]) but we must have
‘moral autonomy” (as mature and rational being, magbinuotan ko kay mao ni ang
dapat isip tawo nga naa sa saktong pangutok o panghunahuna). More so, as rational I
have to follow my rationality treating it as an obligation or duty. Duty means what is
ought to be done. In short, this is not about what you feel or like but the decision is
based from your rational nature. (Deontology, Discussion by Fr. Garrido)
i. "The moral law is a law that is not based on human authority, but on the
very nature of reason itself." - Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals
3. Therefore, the categorical imperative is not just a moral principle, but a duty that we
be obligated to ourselves and to all other rational beings.

• Immanuel Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative, a moral principle that serves as the
foundation for his ethical theory. There are three primary formulations of the Categorical
Imperative:
1. The Formula of Universalizability – According to Kant, “act only in accordance with
that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal
law” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 4:421).
i. A maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle on which we act or
behave as contrary to an objective and external principle or rule upon
which we should act. Implicit maxims are most likely to come only to
people’s attention and to be made explicit when they are asked to justify
their behaviors to others or when they are asked to justify their actions to
themselves” (Falikowski 2004:314). The whole point here is this: maxims
are part and parcel of our daily conduct and behavior, whether we are
aware of them or not.
ii. According to this particular formulation [formula of universalizability], the
essence of morality lies in acting on the basis of an impersonal principle
that is valid for every person, including oneself (Falikowski 2004:314).
Maxims that cannot be universalized or applied to all without exception on
a consistent basis are immoral.
a. For example: Making a false promise (Kant’s own example). To
make a promise, one is saying that he intends to fulfill it. Promises
 are meant to be fulfilled (not broken, as many would love to say) for
them to be meaningful and truly sensible. Thus, accordingly if one
who makes the promise does not intend to fulfill it, then we can say
that the promise is false, not a true promise. (Again, to promise is to
say that one intends to fulfill it) Thus, the act of promising
necessarily and logically implies that one has the intention to fulfill
it, if only to be true to the real meaning (of the word itself) of
promise-making. (offer an argument for the sake of discussion
making promise without intending to fulfill it).
iii. Kant concludes that the maxim contradicts itself for “it not only has
disastrous consequences (the concern of the utilitarians), it undercuts its
own meaning (it is self-defeating) and betrays a purely formal inadequacy”
(Solomon & Greene 1999:21).
a. Hence, in concrete terms, to find out for yourself whether what you
intend to do is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, is to
ask: “What if everyone else would do the same?” The whole point
thus is this: Don’t do things that, if everyone did them, would make
for a world you yourself find unacceptable or abominable and
repugnant.
iv. It is then wrong or immoral to behave in ways that you could not
reasonably and honestly be willing to have everyone else act. Don’t make
yourself or anyone else (no matter who he/she and whatever may be
his/her conditions or situations are) an exception. The Categorical
Imperative holds true for everyone in this world and even outside of it.
This morality’s supreme and ultimate principle.
2. The Formula of the End itself (Principle of Humanity) – “Act in such a way that you
always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never only as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
i. Every human being has a supreme worth and profound dignity due to the
fact that he is a rational agent. This means that because of the ability to
think one is able to decide what particular goals to pursue and generally
what one wants to do with his life. One’s essential dignity therefore mainly
lies on the person’s capacity to determine his own destiny or end as a self-
directed and conscious being.
a. [To Kant, the only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the
universe is our ability to process information and act consciously in
the world. And this, to him, is special. Exceedingly special. For all we
know, we are the only shot the universe has at intelligent self-
organization. Therefore, we need to take it seriously. And,
therefore, rationality and protecting conscious choice must be the
basis for all of our moral reasoning.]
ii. If there were a categorical imperative, what would its end be? Who does it
serve? Since every action has an end and since the categorical imperative
is binding on everyone, its end must be given by reason alone and so
equally valid for all rational beings” (Clark & Poortenga 2003:69).
a. So what is this end that the categorical imperative serves?
The answer for Kant is that “all rational beings exists as an ends in
 themselves. As end in themselves, human beings have value that is
absolute and unconditional” (Clark & Poortenga 2003:69). Thus,
human persons are the ends or the goals by which the categorical
imperative serves. So act so as to treat humanity whether in your
own person or that of any other always as an end and never as a
means only.
iii. This means that as persons with absolute and unconditional dignity and
value, everyone should be treated with utmost respect. Persons are not
instruments or tools alone that are to be used to further one’s interests. We
cannot use people to achieve our own goals and happiness. As we have just
said, by virtue of their rationality, people can decide for themselves. They
can direct their own actions and thus determine their own destiny.
a. Unlike things or objects that only have conditional value and worth
(since they only have value because people endowed them with
such, and if people stop desiring them, they will be worthless),
people then are the source of all conditional value.
b. This means further that nobody then can give human beings their
worth as persons, nor can this be taken away without destroying
their very identities.
c. Human dignity is something that is intrinsic in us. It makes us who
we are. You take it away and the person simply ceases to be.
d. For Example: Like for instance, in riding a multicab to school, are we
not using the other (the driver) to serve our end (to reach our
destination)? Or even on the part of the driver, is he not using us
only as a means to get what he wants (money from us)? As you
might have noticed there seems to be a serious problem here. On a
closer look, however, take note that what Kant is saying is that, we
should treat others as always as an end and never as a means “only”.
This implies that even in a seemingly impersonal transaction, such
as riding on a jeepney and thinking only for ourselves (as we are
only interested for the service that the driver provides for us), “we
can easily imagine Kant admonishing us never to act rudely so as to
treat the other merely as a thing through whom we can only get
what we want” (Lawhead 2003:480).
iv. Here, I will also point out that Kant explicitly insists that we should also
treat our own self with respect just like the way we treat others. That is
why for Kant, killing oneself (suicide) is wrong and thus morally
impermissible. This is also very much true to those who allow themselves
to be manipulated (physically or mentally) in order to get something. Now
you understood that morality does not only concern others but also
ourselves. The personal dimension of morality is oftentimes forgotten in
other ethical theory (such as utilitarianism) that gives emphasis only on
the social aspect. In Kant, morality covers both the personal as well as the
social domains of human existence.
3. The Formula of Autonomy of the Will (Kingdom of Ends) – "When as autonomous
and rational moral agents, we do things following universally valid rules and
principles that we have laid down for ourselves, we become part in what Kant calls
as the ‘kingdom of ends’ – a kind of an ideal moral universe in which respect for
the intrinsic worth and value of all persons is exercised by everyone” (Falikowski
2004:317)
i. To end our discussion on the multifaceted ethics of Kant, let us, make
mention the significant role of human autonomy in matters concerning
morality, for without personal autonomy, morality becomes an
impossibility.
a. Laws must be based from man’s autonomy. Thus, it is our duty also to
create good laws. Again, laws not based from feelings, or personal
desires but from our good will rooted in our being rational persons.
ii. The action in this sense becomes autonomous simply because it is done
without any external incentives or rewards that may come out of it (thus,
the act is done purely for duty and nothing else). Here, we can speak truly
of the will (being the source of choices where one’s motives or intentions
emanate) as autonomous.
iii. Needless to say, in this noble realm, everybody treats everyone as an end
in themselves. No one uses anyone to serve or further his or her ends. In
this kingdom of ends, everyone is equal. Each one’s dignity is glorified.
Every person is a noble and valuable subject who is always cherished and
is never possessed.
a. Kant intuitively understood that there is a fundamental link between
our respect for ourselves and our respect for the world. The way we
interact with our psyche is the template that we apply to our
interactions with others, and little progress can be made with others
until we’ve made progress with ourselves.