Deontological Ethics

Summary of Kant and Ross Beliefs

KANT -Believed that all ethics are ABSOLUTE - no diversion from the principles whatsoever ROSS - Believed that our consequences will provide us morals and ethics. He does not believe in "exclusive" absolutism like Kant. He believes in QUASI ABSOLUTISM

RM MacIver - Deep Beauty of the Golden Rule

"Do unto others as you would have others do to you" -It is a mode of behaving -Not a goal of an action -Golden rule is an approach that puts ppl at ease -You are not attacking a person but rather providing the other person to have a say in engagement -"The Golden Rule does not solve ethical problems but offers only a way of approach. It does not prescribe our treatment of others but only the spirit in which we should treat them"

ROSS - Intuitionism

-Ross argues against Utilitarianism -Unlike Kant, duties are not absolutes -The intrinsic value of a duty is not the duty itself BUT rather the application of the duty -One duty can be overridden by another duty. These are what he refers to as Prima Facie Duties -As soon as a man does an action out of self interest, such as utilitarianism he does not act from duty, so the utilitarianism is not an ethic at all -According to Ross, utilitarianism does have some good ideas...not to maximize pleasure (hedonism) but rather to maximize good

KANT

-Suggests/believes that ABSOLUTES are the only way to govern our actions because without absolutes, our passions and desires get in the way of our reasoning -Kant believes that duties (moral action) are not 'hypothetical' or based upon the circumstance of the situation - but that decisions must be the same all of the time in order for them to have a moral foundation -Overall, reason and logic are the determinants of ethics, and feelings should be removed from such calculus. This is counter to Bentham and Mill who believe that passions drive ethics "Act only on maxims (principles) whereby you can expect everyone else to do the same"

2 Classes of Deontological Ethics

1. Kant's Categorial Imperative 2. Ross's Intuitionism

Kant's First Proposition of Duty

Actions are good when they are done of our DUTY, and free of personal interest -Example: Merchant charging a fair price. Is this a moral duty? (Answer: This is not a moral action bc the person is charging a fair price bc he believes that ppl will further trust him, and thus will provide more business to him. The merchant is driven out of self-interest) -Example: A person who wants to commit suicide because the pain of life is greater than killing himself. However he decides not to do this out of some duty. Is this a moral action? (Answer: According to Kant this is a moral action bc it can be willed to everyone, bc it is not based on self interest but rather on some duty, such as killing is wrong)

What Does Kant Say About Goodwill?

At first Kant's idea of Good will is hard to understand, but it seems to suggest that if a person acts with good intentions - than the outcomes of the action does not matter -sometimes people act with good intentions but bad things happen, and -sometimes people act with bad intentions yet good things happen in the end -Accordingly, the outcome does not matter, but only the will of the action

What is Deontological Ethics?

Definition: Focused on the action...not outcome (consequence) -"Right acts are not determined by consequences of actions but by the "intrinsic" quality of the act itself"(KANT)

Kant's Third Proposition of Duty

Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law, which is based on reason, and will for self preservation CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Absolute, unconditional requirement that allows for NO exceptions; required and justified as an end unto itself IMMORALITY: Is when a person wills an action that cannot be reasonably accommodated by another person...sets a different standard for him/herself

Kant's Second Proposition of Duty

The moral worth of an action derives its maxim (principle) not from the consequence of the action The action itself is more important than the outcome -Act in a way that you never treat ppl as a means, but only as an end. You cannot make any exceptions to the first proposition

ROSS - On Pleasure

Unlike Utilitarianism Ideas... people do not always try to maximize happiness or pleasure -Sometimes people values things that do not bring hedonistic pleasure - Examples: Good character, high levels of intelligence -Based on this idea Ross believes that we should try and maximize 'GOOD' and avoid the idea of maximizing 'PLEASURE'

ROSS - Example

You meet a colleague for a drink (nothing important), but on your way you receive a desperate call from a friend in need of help. You decide to not show up for the drink with your colleague, but rather assist the friend who needs you. Is this ethical?? Answer: According to Kant, you do not break contracts, they are absolutes. But what Ross suggests you can break contracts IF IT MAXIMIZES the GOOD. In this sense you are probably not maximizing utilitarianism either(?)