Chapter 204 - Deontology PDF

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph...

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified ETHICS UNIT 2 – ETHICAL THEORIES CHAPTER 4 – DEONTOLOGY A. DIVINE COMMANY THEORY GOD’S WILL AS THE BASIS OF MORAL LAW Ethics is often closely identified with religion in many societies. Religious beliefs significantly influence how people view morality, leading many to equate what is morally good with what God commands. One such theory rooted in this perspective is Divine Command Theory, which proposes that moral duties and values are grounded in God's will. Plato’s Euthyphro raises a significant question: "Does God command what is good because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?" Divine Command Theory answers this clearly: "Whatever is good is good only because God wills it." According to this view, an action is morally right if it aligns with God's will. For many believers, it is natural to think that a good life is achieved by following God’s will since they view God as the source of their existence. By aligning one's actions with God's commands, they believe they live a morally upright life. As societies differ in religious beliefs, various religious groups maintain that their understanding of God's commands takes precedence over secular moral rules. Muslim Fundamentalists prioritize Allah's commands. Christian Fundamentalists place emphasis on the commands of Jesus. Orthodox Jews follow the commands from the Old Testament. The common theme is that all these positions believe that God’s commands—not human reason or societal rules—are the ultimate guide to human behavior. Supporters of Divine Command Theory fall into two groups: The strong version and The weak version. The strong version of DCT asserts that: There is no conflict between God’s commands and morality because whatever God commands is right simply because God commands it. Morality originates from God. If God doesn’t exist, then morality also doesn’t exist. This idea is captured by the statement: “If God does not exist, everything is permissible.” – Ivan Karamazov (Dostoyevsky). In this view: Moral rightness equals what God wills, and Moral wrongness equals what opposes God’s will. Pojman (1999) summarizes the three main claims of the strong version of DCT: 1. Morality originates with God. 2. Rightness means "willed by God," and wrongness means "against God's will." 3. Morality is based solely on divine will; no further reasoning is necessary. 1  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified The weak version of DCT, articulated by philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, modifies the theory. While it agrees that ethics has an independent foundation in reason, it posits that God’s commands override reason in cases of conflict. In Fear and Trembling, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, as commanded by God, shows that divine command can override reason and morality. Although killing Isaac would typically be seen as immoral, Abraham’s faith and obedience to God took precedence over his understanding of morality. In contrast to the strong version, the weak version maintains that even without God, morality could still exist, as it is grounded in reason. However, for a true believer, God’s will holds ultimate authority, even over reason. Divine Command Theory is best suited to monotheistic religions where God is all good (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam). In these religions, God’s commands provide a clear moral framework. For polytheistic religions (where there are many gods, not all of whom are morally good), DCT becomes difficult to apply consistently because of conflicting divine wills. CRITICISMS ON THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY The Divine Command Theory has been subjected to strong criticisms from both theistic and atheistic philosophers who argue that God's commands cannot override ethics based on reason. There are three criticisms that we will consider here. 1. The Problem of Knowing God's Will One of the major criticisms of Divine Command Theory is the difficulty in determining how we can come to know God's will. Proponents often struggle to provide a satisfactory answer to this question because: Many people claim to know God's will, yet their ideas of what it is often differ significantly. Critics ask whether any one person or group has any greater claim to understanding God's will than another. This raises the issue of which sources of divine teachings are authentic. Is it the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, or some other religious text that is believed to be divinely inspired? Even within a single religious tradition, there is sometimes debate over what God commands on specific moral issues. For example, in the Catholic Church, there is an ongoing debate about whether the use of contraceptives violates God's will. Sacred texts are not always sufficient to address modern moral dilemmas such as genetic engineering or artificial insemination. Some people claim that God speaks directly to individuals through a voice, conscience, or even nature. These varied claims can lead to contradictory interpretations of God's will. The problem with all these sources is that they provide a wealth of often contradictory information, with no clear way to resolve these contradictions. For example, if one religion claims that suicide bombing is commanded by God, it becomes difficult to challenge this belief if adherents view it as divinely ordained. 2. Moral Arbitrariness The Divine Command Theory also faces the challenge of moral arbitrariness. If God's command is sufficient to justify any action as morally right, then: 2  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified God could theoretically command actions that seem immoral, such as deception, cheating, or even torture. If there is no moral standard independent of God's will, then anything could be justified if God commands it. This issue is illustrated by the biblical story of Abraham, who was commanded by God to sacrifice his son. If God's command alone makes an action morally right, then we could be required to violate others' rights if God so commands. Philosopher Robert Adams has argued that God cannot require cruelty for its own sake because it contradicts the notion that God is love. However, this defense suggests that love is an independent moral criterion that limits God's commands. If we say that divine commands must be consistent with love to be ethically binding, we are implying that love is a higher moral standard than God's will. This contradicts the essence of Divine Command Theory, which states that actions are good solely because God commands them. 3. Human Autonomy The third criticism relates to the issue of human autonomy. If what is right is based solely on what God wills, then: We are bound to conform to whatever God commands without exercising our own reason. This challenges the notion of human autonomy, as it implies that our ability to think and make decisions independently is rendered useless. We are simply following divine commands without engaging our rational faculties. There are instances where strict adherence to Divine Command Theory contradicts human reason. For example, some religions teach that blood transfusions are forbidden by God. In cases where a blood transfusion is necessary to save a life, following this religious command would mean disregarding the life-saving advice of doctors, which can be seen as a rejection of rational decision-making. IMPORTANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF GOD IN MORALITY Despite the objections raised against the Divine Command Theory, some thinkers who do not necessarily adhere to it still argue that belief in God has a significant role in morality. These thinkers suggest that while religion may not determine what is morally right or wrong, it can provide a framework for why people should follow moral laws. In this sense, the existence of God has practical relevance to morality. One key reason is that morality requires a form of enforcement to ensure that its laws are followed. In the absence of divine justice, moral laws do not have an authority to enforce them. Unlike legal statutes enforced by governments, which punish violations, moral laws do not inherently guarantee punishment or reward. This raises an important question: Why be moral if immoral actions can lead to success? In society, some individuals profit, become wealthy, or lead comfortable lives through immoral actions such as cheating, lying, and manipulation. Without the belief in life after death or divine justice, it may seem that these people escape the consequences of their actions, while those who follow moral laws may suffer or fail to prosper. This situation leads to the concern that without God, morality lacks sufficient motivation. However, if God exists, ultimate justice is ensured. The belief in God implies that eventually, good will triumph over evil, and all individuals will receive their due rewards or punishments based on their moral behavior. This idea is present not only in Christianity but also in Judaism, Islam, and other world religions. For example, in Hinduism, the law of karma dictates that a person's present condition in life is the result of their actions in previous lives, and their current actions will shape their future existence. 3  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified While religion may not fully address the content of morality (i.e., what is right or wrong), it addresses the motivation behind morality. The belief in a perfectly just God and the existence of an immortal soul provides powerful motivation for leading a moral life. The fear of eternal damnation and the desire for eternal happiness are significant motivating forces. A belief system that includes a perfect divine judge encourages people to act morally in the hope of achieving eternal life or avoiding eternal punishment. Additionally, as Hinman (2003) points out, religion offers structures and practices that support its moral values. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and religious communities provide mutual support and guidance, which strengthens adherence to moral standards. Even religions that do not believe in personal immortality can offer similar communal support structures. This communal and institutional backing is often absent in secular ethics, which may struggle to offer the same level of motivation and reinforcement for moral behavior. B. NATURAL LAW BASIS OF RIGHT ACTION Natural Law Theory asserts that morality is inherent in the natural order of things. According to this theory, certain actions are considered right by nature, independent of human opinion or cultural practices. In contrast, other actions—such as dress codes and manners—are deemed right only by custom or societal convention. The theory holds that reason can identify valid moral principles by examining human nature and society. Many people instinctively associate what is "unnatural" with immorality. This connection is often reflected in language, where terms like "unnatural acts" are used in legal and moral contexts to condemn certain behaviors as wrong. Similarly, the word "natural" is commonly linked with what is good or morally right. It makes sense that ethical regulations aim to benefit humanity, and it is reasonable to believe that these benefits align with the requirements of human nature. For many, this seems like a logical foundation for an ethical system, as human nature itself appears to offer a reliable guide for determining what is morally good. However, understanding Natural Law Theory requires addressing several important questions: Does this theory suggest that doing whatever comes naturally is morally right? Just because something feels natural does not necessarily mean it is morally acceptable. What does "nature" mean in the context of natural law ethics? The concept of "nature" can be interpreted in different ways, which leads to varying conclusions about what is considered natural or unnatural. How do we determine the standards of conduct that human nature requires? Even if we agree that morality is grounded in human nature, it is not always clear how we can derive specific moral rules from our understanding of nature. These questions reveal the complexity of Natural Law Theory and the need for careful consideration in applying it to moral judgments. While the theory suggests that morality is rooted in the natural order and human nature, it also requires a deeper understanding of what "nature" entails and how it informs ethical behavior. THE NOTION OF NATURE The Stoics, active in the first century BC, were among the first to conceive of natural law as the foundation of morality. They understood nature in terms of the natural order of the universe, which they called "cosmic nature." For the Stoics: The universe was governed by a rational and unifying cosmic principle. To reason and act rationally was to live in harmony with this universal order. 4  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Living morally meant aligning oneself with the rational laws of the cosmos. Vice and violence were seen as the results of irrationality and a failure to align with these universal principles. Although Natural Law Theory was rooted in the classical period, it became more prominent during medieval times, particularly with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. The most influential proponent of this theory was Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), who built on the Stoics' concept of cosmic natural law and integrated it with Aristotle's view that all beings have a specific nature, purpose, and function. For Aristotle: Everything has a function: a knife’s function is to cut sharply, a pencil’s function is to write. Similarly, human beings have a function, which is to reason, and this constitutes their nature. Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s framework and applied it to his understanding of natural law. According to Aquinas: Human beings' function is to exhibit rationality in all its forms—through contemplation, deliberation, and action. Reason allows us to discover natural laws, which are universal rules intended for the common good. The fundamental precept of natural law is: "Good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided." Aquinas further explained that: Human beings naturally incline toward certain actions because reason helps them recognize these actions as good. He identified certain fundamental values: o Life and procreation are essential to human existence; without them, other values cannot be established. o Knowledge and sociability are also intrinsic values that reflect human nature. The pursuit of these fundamental goods is what leads to individual fulfillment, according to Aquinas. While Aquinas provided a foundational list of human inclinations (life, procreation, knowledge, and sociability), he did not claim this list was exhaustive. Later natural law theorists expanded upon Aquinas’s ideas by including other values, such as: Play Aesthetic experience However, Aquinas’s original list is often considered sufficient to represent the core aspects of human nature. These views are supported by insights from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. MORAL ABSOLUTISM AND THE QUALIFYING PRINCIPLES Aquinas's position, and the natural law tradition in general, fall under moral absolutism, which asserts that certain kinds of actions are always wrong or always obligatory, regardless of the consequences. According to natural law theorists: None of the values derived from natural inclinations may be directly violated. For instance, innocent people may not be killed, even if it would save more innocent lives. Similarly, the procreative function cannot be violated, as in the case of contraception, even if using contraception is necessary to achieve other values, such as providing for the education of children or protecting a mother's life during a dangerous pregnancy. 5  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Natural law theorists also maintain that basic values cannot be measured or compared: Basic values cannot be quantified or measured using a common unit, so they cannot be traded off against each other. For example, one cannot compare the value of knowledge and the value of procreation on a common scale. Likewise, a single life cannot be compared with several lives, which is why natural law theory rejects the utilitarian idea of sacrificing one life to save many others. This leads to a fundamental disagreement between natural law theory and utilitarianism. Natural law theory claims that because values are immeasurable, we cannot calculate which consequences of an action are more important. Consequently, certain actions—such as killing, lying, torturing, or committing adultery—are inherently flawed and morally wrong, regardless of the results. CRITICISMS OF MORAL ABSOLUTISM IN NATURAL LAW This absolutist aspect of natural law theory has attracted criticism, particularly in situations where there is a conflict between two or more values: What should we do when any action we take violates some value and is therefore considered immoral? For instance, self-defense may sometimes require violating another person’s right to life. Similarly, saving someone's life may require withholding truth, thereby violating the value of knowledge. To address these dilemmas, natural law theorists have developed two important principles: 1. The Principle of Forfeiture 2. The Principle of Double Effect The Principle of Forfeiture According to this principle: A person who unjustly threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits their own right to life. For example, if you are taken hostage by criminals who threaten your life, it is morally permissible for the police—or even yourself—to kill the hostage-takers to save your life. The aggressors have forfeited their natural inclination to self-preservation by threatening your life. This principle can justify actions such as: Self-defense and Capital punishment. Aquinas himself supported capital punishment when he argued: “To kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil, but it may be justifiable to kill a sinner... for, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful” (Aquinas, 1945, question 64). Here, Aquinas argues that while killing is generally wrong, it can be justified when it serves the common good and the person being killed has forfeited their worthiness by committing harmful acts. The Principle of Double Effect This principle provides guidelines for situations where performing a good act might lead to bad consequences. It states: It is always wrong to intentionally do a bad act to bring about good consequences. 6  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified However, it is sometimes permissible to do a good act even if it brings about bad consequences, provided four conditions are met: 1. The Nature-of-the-Act Condition § The act itself must be morally good or at least morally permissible. § For example, torturing an innocent person is inherently evil and never permissible. 2. The Means-End Condition § The bad effect must not be the means of achieving the good effect. § For example, in self-defense, the harm caused to the aggressor must not be the method used to achieve safety. 3. The Right-Intention Condition § The intention must be to achieve the good effect, with the bad effect being an unintended side effect. § The bad effect may be foreseen, but it must not be the goal of the action. 4. The Proportionality Condition § The good effect must be at least equivalent to the importance of the bad effect. Example of Double Effect Consider the case of a pregnant woman diagnosed with a cancerous uterus who must undergo a hysterectomy to save her life, which will result in the termination of her pregnancy: Nature-of-the-Act: Undergoing the hysterectomy is morally permissible because it is aimed at preserving the woman's life. Means-End: The bad effect (termination of pregnancy) is not the means of achieving the good effect (saving her life). The abortion is an unintended side effect of the necessary medical procedure. Right-Intention: The intention is to save the mother’s life, not to terminate the pregnancy. Proportionality: The death of the fetus is proportionate to the good effect of saving the mother’s life. If an alternative procedure existed that would save both, it should be pursued. Another Example: Torture and Saving Lives Suppose a person knows the location of a bomb set to detonate in half an hour, and authorities consider torturing her to get the information: Double Effect would not permit this, since torturing an innocent person violates the means- end condition. The bad act (torture) cannot be used as a means to achieve the good effect (saving lives). ISSUES CHALLENGING THE NATURAL LAW THEORY Despite the inclusion of qualifying principles in Natural Law Theory to address potential difficulties in its application, critics have raised significant issues that challenge the theory. One major issue is the difficulty of distinguishing between unforeseen and unintended consequences. For example: In a situation where lives are at stake, could I lie with the intention of saving lives, even though I foresee that this will deceive others? Could I steal food from a grocery store intending to feed the poor, while foreseeing that the store owner will suffer a minor financial loss? These situations demonstrate how complex it can be to apply the principle of double effect. Critics argue that the line between what is foreseen and what is intended is often blurred, leading to moral ambiguity. A classic criticism of Natural Law Theory was advanced by David Hume (1711-1776). Hume argued that the theory conflates what is the case with what ought to be the case. This is known as the “is-ought” 7  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified problem, which suggests that one cannot logically derive a moral imperative or value judgment from mere facts of nature. Hume's point is that just because something occurs naturally does not mean it is morally correct. For instance, Natural Law theorists may argue that because the purpose of sexual intercourse, as dictated by nature or God's laws, is reproduction, any sexual act that deviates from this purpose is immoral. However, critics, including Hume, point out the logical flaw in this reasoning: Just because something is natural (such as the reproductive purpose of sex) does not mean it ought to be the only morally acceptable form of sexual behavior. In fact, applying this reasoning consistently would suggest that any natural tendency—such as the human inclination to prioritize self-care over helping strangers—ought to be morally acceptable, which is clearly problematic. Another significant issue raised by critics involves Natural Law Theory's assumption that moral principles are "written" into the laws of nature. This view is often tied to the belief that humanity has a plan designed by God or a godlike nature, and any deviation from this plan is considered morally wrong. For instance: Since the divine plan includes procreation, and sexuality is the means to achieve this goal, only heterosexual intercourse without artificial contraception is considered morally permissible according to traditional natural law theorists. However, with the rise of modern science, this assumption has become debatable. Darwinian evolutionary theory, for example, challenges the idea of a preordained natural design: Evolution suggests that human beings are not the product of a divine plan but rather the result of random variation and natural selection. We are the product of chance in the struggle for existence. If this is the case, then the idea of a single, universal human purpose based on a divine plan becomes questionable. Instead, we may have multiple purposes depending on the context, and what is morally right may vary based on the specific purpose we are serving. Reflecting on this point, Pojman (1999) remarked: "Reason's task may not be to discover an essence of humanity." This statement implies that there may not be a single, fixed essence or purpose for human beings that reason can uncover. Instead, human nature may be more flexible, and moral principles might need to be adaptable to varying circumstances and purposes. C. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ACTING FROM DUTY Kant’s notion of Good Will as the highest good necessitates a deeper understanding of what it means to have a good will. According to Kant, an individual acts with a good will when they do the right thing for the right reason, which is the correct moral motive. The essence of being a morally good person, in Kant's view, is not just to follow acceptable moral rules, but to do so out of respect for the moral law itself. This respect is what Kant refers to as acting from duty. For Kant, the motivation behind an action is what determines its moral worth. One must perform moral duties for their own sake, not because of any personal benefit or emotional inclination. For instance: If a restaurant owner provides excellent service and treats customers fairly because he believes it will benefit his business, he is acting in accord with duty but not from duty. Even though his actions are morally right, they lack true moral worth because they are driven by self-interest rather than a sense of duty. 8  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Similarly, if someone gives food to a beggar out of pity or compassion, their act, although good, does not have moral worth in Kant's framework because the action is motivated by emotion rather than reason. Kant emphasizes that reason, not emotion, should guide moral actions. Acting from duty means doing the right thing simply because it is right, regardless of any emotional impulses or desires. If someone gives donations to typhoon victims out of a desire for recognition or because they feel pity, their act, while in accordance with moral rules, lacks true moral value. Kant argues that if emotions like pity or compassion were the driving force behind moral actions, individuals would stop helping others when those emotions faded. Therefore, for an action to have moral worth, it must be performed solely because it is one’s duty to act in that way. Kant suggests that in following moral rules out of respect for duty, we are elevating the noblest aspect of our humanity—our ability to reason. By doing what is right simply because it is right, and not because of any external rewards or desires, we are exercising control over our desires. Instead of being driven by emotions or personal gain, we are governed by reason. This self-governance through reason is what Kant views as the hallmark of moral freedom. The Role of Duty in Moral Actions For Kant, if an action is not willed from a sense of duty—such as being fair and honest—then it does not have true moral worth. Only when actions arise from a recognition of duty and a conscious choice to fulfill that duty do they possess genuine moral value. Thus, Kant distinguishes between actions that merely conform to duty and those that are performed out of a sense of duty. The latter are the only ones that count as truly moral actions. The Categorical Imperative: Determining Our Duty But how do we determine what our duties are? How do we know what morality requires of us? Kant answers these questions by introducing the concept of the categorical imperative. This concept is central to Kant’s moral philosophy and provides a guide for determining the morality of an action. The categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal desires or goals. It is a principle that must be followed in all circumstances, simply because it is the right thing to do. Kant contrasts this with hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional and depend on specific desires or outcomes. The categorical imperative addresses the fundamental question: "What makes a moral act right?" Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative provides a rational basis for determining what our moral duties are and ensures that morality is not subject to personal whims or contingent on outcomes. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Kant’s moral philosophy, particularly his concept of the categorical imperative, stands in contrast to the consequentialist view. Whereas consequentialists base moral judgments on the outcomes of actions and empirical data, Kant argues that reason alone can yield moral laws. Just as we can arrive at certain abstract truths, such as "Every change must have a cause," through reason alone, we can similarly discover absolute moral truths and our moral duties without relying on the consequences of actions. In Kant’s framework, moral duties can be understood as imperatives or commands. He distinguishes between two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative follows the formula: "If you want X, then do Y." For example, "If you want to be physically fit, then you must exercise regularly," or "If you want to graduate with 9  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified honors, then you must study hard." These imperatives are conditional; they depend on the desired outcome. In contrast, a categorical imperative is simply: "Do Y." This means doing what reason tells you is intrinsically right, without reference to any particular outcomes or desires. For example, telling the truth would be a categorical imperative because it is the right thing to do regardless of any personal benefit or consequence. Kant argues that moral obligations must be understood in terms of categorical imperatives because these imperatives represent duties that bind us absolutely and unconditionally. They do not depend on personal goals, desires, or consequences; instead, they are universal and must be followed because they are morally right in themselves. As Pojman (1999, 139) describes them, "Categorical imperatives are intuitive, immediate, absolute injunctions that all rational agents understand by virtue of their rationality." Characteristics of Categorical Imperatives Categorical imperatives: Contain no reference to consequences that may follow an action. Are not conditional on personal desires or interests. Bind us as obligations that must be followed without exception. Kant believes that this sense of unconditional duty is fundamental to our moral experience. The categorical imperative describes the "moral law within," which guides us in determining right and wrong. It is the source of our feeling that we ought to perform certain actions (or refrain from performing others) no matter what the consequences might be. RULES MUST BE UNIVERSAL Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is the Principle of Universal Law, which states: "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." By "maxim," Kant means the general rule or principle that the agent intends to follow. This principle requires us to step outside our personal perspectives and consider whether the maxim we are acting on can be willed as a rule for everyone to follow. If it can be universally applied without contradiction, the action is morally permissible. If it cannot, the action is morally wrong. Key Points of the Principle of Universal Law 1. Impartiality and Universality: The principle forces us to ask whether a given maxim could be applied universally. It is similar to the Golden Rule, which says we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Kant’s principle, however, is not about personal preferences but about rational consistency. If you act according to a maxim, you must be able to rationally will that everyone in a similar situation could act according to the same maxim. If not, the action is morally impermissible. 2. Moral Duty vs. Self-Interest: Kant distinguishes between actions that conform to duty and actions that conform to self- interest. Even if an action benefits oneself, it does not hold moral worth if the maxim behind it cannot be universalized. For instance, if someone borrows money with no intention of repaying it, their maxim would be: "When I need money, I will borrow it and promise to repay it, even though I know I won't." If this maxim were universalized, everyone would make false promises, leading to the collapse of the concept of promise-keeping. No one would believe in promises anymore, thus making it self- 10  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified contradictory and impossible to universalize. Therefore, the act of borrowing with no intention to repay is morally wrong. 3. The Irrelevance of Consequences: For Kant, breaking promises is wrong not because of the consequences (e.g., distrust in society) but because it violates reason itself. The very concept of a promise would lose meaning if everyone could break promises when it suited their interests. Hence, it is not the negative outcome but the logical contradiction that makes the action immoral. Kant's Example of Suicide Kant also uses the example of suicide to illustrate the principle. Suppose a man, after enduring severe hardships, contemplates suicide. His maxim might be: "From self-love, I adopt the principle to end my life when I expect more suffering than satisfaction. Kant argues that this maxim cannot be universalized because it would contradict the very purpose of self- love, which is to preserve life. A system of nature in which self-love leads to self-destruction would be irrational and self-contradictory. Therefore, suicide, based on this maxim, cannot be morally permissible. Three Key Insights from the Principle of Universal Law (According to Wall, 2003) 1. No Specific Rules: The categorical imperative does not provide a list of specific rules like "don’t steal" or "keep your promises." Instead, it establishes a criterion that any rule must satisfy: universalizability. Any moral rule must be one that everyone can follow without contradiction. 2. Impartiality in Moral Duty: By requiring that rules be universalizable, Kant emphasizes that impartiality is essential to morality. One must consider oneself no less bound by moral rules than anyone else. We must apply the same moral standards to ourselves as we would to others, without exception. 3. No Exceptions: There are no exceptions to rules derived from the categorical imperative. If breaking a promise leads to a contradiction in one case, then any act of promise-breaking is wrong, regardless of the consequences. Moral rules that are universalizable must be followed at all times, without exception, even if doing so is personally harmful or difficult. TREATING PERSONS AS ENDS The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative, known as the Principle of Respect for Persons or the Principle of Ends, states: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means.” This formulation highlights Kant’s belief in the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, which stems from their possession of rationality. Since humans have the capacity to reason, they have intrinsic value, not because of what they contribute to society, but because of their rational nature. Human Dignity and Rationality Kant argues that rational beings are valuable in and of themselves. Even those who do not act rationally at all times, such as individuals who succumb to their desires, still hold intrinsic value because they possess the potential to act rationally. This inherent worth must always be respected, and it is morally wrong to treat individuals as mere tools or means to achieve the ends of others. Using someone as a mere means disrespects their rational autonomy and disregards their dignity as a human being. The Impermissibility of Using People as Mere Means 11  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Kant’s second formulation asserts that it is immoral to use someone simply as a means to achieve another goal, even if doing so results in greater societal benefits. This principle is captured by the phrase: “The end does not justify the means.” Actions are morally unacceptable if they violate the dignity, rights, or autonomy of individuals, regardless of the positive outcomes those actions might produce for others. Examples Illustrating the Principle of Respect for Persons 1. Doctor and Organ Transplants: Suppose a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants. Is it morally permissible for the doctor to do this? According to the categorical imperative, the answer is no. In this scenario, the doctor would be treating the healthy person merely as a means to an end, disregarding their autonomy and dignity, even if it benefits more people. 2. Judge and Conviction of an Innocent Person: Similarly, imagine a judge who can prevent a riot (which would cause many deaths) by convicting and punishing one innocent person. Again, Kant’s principle would reject this action as immoral because the judge would be using the innocent person as a tool to achieve societal stability, violating the individual’s inherent dignity and rights. In both cases, Kant rejects utilitarian thinking: the good of the majority does not override the moral requirement to respect the dignity and rights of each individual. Treating any person merely as a means, regardless of the perceived benefits to others, is morally impermissible. When It Is Permissible to Use People as Means It is important to note that Kant does not entirely forbid treating others as a means, provided that we also treat them as ends in themselves. For example: Transactional relationships: A bank teller processes your transaction, a driver takes you to your destination, and a food worker prepares your meal. In these cases, individuals serve as means to your ends, but this is morally permissible as long as their autonomy and dignity are respected. This is done by paying them fairly, ensuring they have freely chosen their work, and treating them with respect during the interaction. The key here is consent and mutual respect. If individuals choose freely to perform certain roles or services, and their dignity is maintained, it is morally acceptable for them to serve as means. What Kant forbids is using others without respecting their autonomy or forcing them into roles that serve our interests without their consent. Respect for One's Own Dignity Kant’s second formulation also emphasizes that we have a moral duty to respect not only the dignity of others but also our own dignity. This means we must treat ourselves as ends in the same way we treat others, ensuring that we do not degrade our own rational worth. Thomas Hill, in his article “Servility and Self-Respect,” provides an example of a deferential wife: The wife is utterly devoted to serving her husband, sacrificing her own desires and interests to meet his preferences. While she does so voluntarily and finds happiness in this role, Hill argues that she fails to respect her own moral rights and dignity. This situation reveals a moral failing, even though no one is explicitly trampling on her rights. In such cases, Kant asserts that individuals must respect their own worth and not allow themselves to be reduced to mere tools for others’ benefit. For instance, a person does not have the moral right to sell themselves into slavery, even if they choose to do so voluntarily. This would be a violation of their own dignity and rational autonomy. 12  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Suicide as a Violation of Human Dignity Kant also considers suicide as an example of treating oneself merely as a means. If a person decides to commit suicide to escape pain, depression, or hardship, they are using their life as a tool to achieve personal relief. This violates the intrinsic worth of humanity that exists within them. According to Kant, this act degrades humanity by treating life as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself. Connection to the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative Kant believes that the second formulation, the Principle of Respect for Persons, is connected to the first formulation, the Principle of Universal Law. For example: A maxim that involves cheating is immoral because it treats others as mere objects of deception. It is also not universalizable, as no one would rationally will that everyone should cheat. Therefore, the principle that people should not be used as means aligns with the universalizability of moral laws. THE WILL AS UNIVERSAL LAWGIVER The third formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is known as the Principle of Autonomy, expressed as: "So act as if you were always through your maxims a law-making member of the kingdom of ends." This principle envisions a community of all rational beings, united by shared moral laws, where each person is regarded with mutual respect. The kingdom of ends is a community in which every individual treats others not merely as means to an end but as ends in themselves, with each member being both the subject and the author of the moral laws they follow. Autonomy and Moral Law In this formulation, Kant introduces autonomy as an essential component of morality. Autonomy means that individuals must freely choose the moral laws they follow. Moral rules must not be imposed externally, whether by tradition, authority, or personal inclinations. While individuals may be raised with certain moral teachings—such as refraining from lying or stealing—those rules must be consciously accepted and acted upon by the individual, not simply followed because of external pressures or influences. Kant believes that every rational being should see themselves as the author of universal law. This means that people should not rely on external authorities, such as religion, culture, or the state, to determine what is right or wrong. Instead, they must discover moral laws through reason. Kant contrasts this with heteronomy, where one’s actions are driven by the influence of external authorities or expectations. Examples of Heteronomy 1. Teenager influenced by religious pressure: If a teenager refrains from premarital sex solely because of religious influence, their action lacks moral worth according to Kant. This is because the teenager’s decision is motivated by an external authority (the church) rather than by a reasoned understanding of their moral duty. 2. Businessman pays taxes to avoid punishment: If a businessman pays his taxes because he fears legal punishment, he is not acting morally according to Kant. His action is driven by self-interest (fear of punishment) rather than an autonomous recognition of his duty to contribute fairly to society. In both cases, the individuals are conforming to external authority, rather than acting autonomously from their own rational understanding of moral law. The Importance of Personal Autonomy in Moral Decision-Making 13  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Kant emphasizes that moral maxims must be personal—we must regard the moral laws we follow as being our own rules, arrived at through reason. However, this does not mean that individuals can invent arbitrary rules based on personal preference. The moral rules we create must still be universalizable and must respect the dignity of others. When we act autonomously, we act according to reason and self-legislate the moral rules we follow. This allows us to transcend our desires and inclinations, aligning our actions with our true rational nature. Reason is the highest expression of our human nature, and living in accordance with reason, rather than external pressures or personal inclinations, leads to a dignified and morally fulfilling life. Respecting the Autonomy of Others Kant’s Principle of Autonomy also requires that we respect the autonomy of others. Just as we must make our own moral decisions through reason, we must also recognize and respect the capacity of others to do the same. People are the center of their own life plans, and even when we disagree with their choices, we must respect their autonomy. For example, a mother who wishes to persuade her son to follow a certain career path for his own good must respect his autonomy if he decides to choose a different course after thoughtful consideration. Forcing her will on him would be morally wrong, according to Kant, as it would be a violation of his dignity as a rational, autonomous being. Even if the mother’s intentions are good, she cannot impose her plan on her son, as this would disrespect his capacity for rational decision-making. Autonomy as the Source of Dignity Kant views autonomy as the source of human dignity. By freely choosing to follow universal moral laws, we live in accordance with our rational nature and affirm our own dignity. In addition, respecting the autonomy of others reflects a recognition of their dignity as rational beings. As Wall (2003, 42) explains, this autonomous, self-governing life is "the source of our dignity and deserves the highest respect." Thus, it is essential not only to nurture and protect our own autonomy but also to respect the autonomy of others, even when their choices differ from what we think is best for them. Autonomy and Respect for Rational Beings By combining the three formulations of the categorical imperative—universalizability, respect for persons, and autonomy—Kant develops a comprehensive framework for moral action. The Principle of Autonomy emphasizes that we should not only act in accordance with moral laws that we can rationally will for ourselves but also that we should be the creators of those laws. This allows us to govern ourselves according to reason, elevating our moral decisions beyond mere obedience to external authority or personal inclination. In practice, this means respecting others’ autonomy as well as our own, recognizing that each person is capable of rational self-governance. This respect for autonomy forms the foundation of a moral community, where individuals treat each other as ends in themselves and co-legislate the moral rules that govern their interactions. EVALUATING KANT'S ETHICS Kant’s moral theory, though highly influential, faces several significant criticisms, particularly in relation to its absolutism, its focus on duty as the sole moral motivation, and its exclusion of non-rational beings from moral consideration. Here, we explore these three objections in detail: 14  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified 1. The Absolutism of Kant’s Moral Rules Kant’s moral theory holds that moral rules are absolute and exceptionless. This means they must be followed in all circumstances, regardless of the consequences. One of the major challenges with this view is that it fails to provide guidance in situations where moral rules come into conflict. For example: The conflict between telling the truth and protecting life: Suppose you receive tragic news about a relative, and your mother—who is at risk of a heart attack—asks you about the situation. Telling her the truth may lead to a fatal outcome, but lying to her would violate the categorical imperative, which demands truthfulness. Kant’s theory offers no way to resolve this dilemma, as it does not prioritize one moral rule over another. In such situations, Kant’s categorical imperative does not allow for exceptions or ranking of conflicting duties. It offers no mechanism to determine which rule should take precedence, leading to potential paralysis in moral decision-making. In contrast, a utilitarian would resolve the conflict by prioritizing the rule that promotes the most overall good, which in this case might be protecting the mother’s life over telling the truth. Kant’s rigid framework does not account for the complexity of real-life situations, where moral duties often clash. Critics argue that his theory lacks the flexibility to weigh competing obligations and consider the context surrounding moral actions. 2. The Focus on Duty as the Sole Moral Motivation Another major criticism of Kant’s theory is its view that the only morally worthwhile motivation for action is duty. According to Kant, actions performed from emotions such as pity, compassion, or sympathy have no moral worth. Only when actions are done out of a sense of duty—in other words, because it is the right thing to do—do they have true moral value. For example: A person who donates relief goods to typhoon victims out of compassion is not acting morally, according to Kant, because the motivation comes from an emotion rather than from a recognition of duty. Critics argue that this view is unrealistic and overly demanding. Human beings are not purely rational creatures; our actions are often influenced by emotions, desires, and feelings. Compassion, kindness, and empathy are seen by many as noble motivations that contribute to moral action. As Shaw (2002) points out, we might actually find someone motivated by human sympathies to be more admirable than someone who acts solely out of an abstract sense of duty. For most people, emotions like kindness and compassion are integral to moral life, playing a critical role in motivating people to help others. Wall (2003) notes that humans consist of both reason and feelings, and attempting to separate moral action from feelings makes Kant’s theory seem cold and detached from the realities of human life. In everyday moral decisions, emotions often guide us toward compassionate actions, and Kant’s dismissal of these emotional motives is seen as a narrow and incomplete view of what it means to act morally. 3. The Exclusion of Non-Rational Beings from Moral Consideration A third major criticism is Kant’s view that only rational beings have moral standing. In Kant’s “kingdom of ends,” moral consideration is limited to those capable of rational judgment and the ability to deliberate about universal moral principles. This excludes individuals who are rationally impaired— such as those with severe dementia—as well as animals, because they lack the rational capacities that Kant deems necessary for moral worth. This leads to problematic implications: 15  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Kant’s theory suggests that someone with severe dementia or similar cognitive impairments has no inherent moral standing, and it would not be inherently wrong to mistreat them. Similarly, animals such as dogs, cats, monkeys, and dolphins are excluded from moral consideration because they are considered non-rational beings. While Kant disapproves of cruelty to animals, it is not because of any inherent moral worth in the animals themselves, but because such cruelty might make a person more likely to mistreat humans. However, contemporary scientific research has shown that some animals possess significant cognitive abilities, including self-awareness, symbolic communication, understanding of cause and effect, and the ability to set and pursue goals. These findings challenge Kant’s assumption that animals are entirely non- rational and raise questions about whether his exclusion of animals from moral consideration is justified. Critics argue that Kant’s theory is outdated in its treatment of non-rational beings. In modern ethical discussions, the idea that sentience—the capacity to experience suffering and pleasure—should be the basis for moral standing has gained significant traction. This approach suggests that animals, and even humans with impaired rationality, deserve moral consideration because they can experience suffering, not because they possess rationality. 16