Ethics Lessons for Finals PDF

UNIT IV: DEONTOLOGY Moral theorists identify Immanuel Kant as the main proponent of deontology. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In...

UNIT IV: DEONTOLOGY Moral theorists identify Immanuel Kant as the main proponent of deontology. The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In Kant was a German Enlightenment philosopher who contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of wrote one of the most important works on morality, those kinds of normative theories regarding which “Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785)” choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. which highlighted the idea of the rational will, which is In other words, deontology falls within the domain of the capacity to act according to principles that we moral theories that guide and assess our choices of determine for ourselves. what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be. 💡 Rational will - It refers to the capacity of human beings to make decisions based on reason rather than impulse, emotion, or external influence. A LESSON 1: On Moral Convictions rational will is one that acts according to universal moral laws, which are determined by reason alone. 💡 Moral Conviction - refers to the perception that one's feelings about a given attitude object are Kant developed revolutionary insights concerning the based on one's beliefs about right and wrong. human mind and the conditions for the possibility of (Oxford Dictionary) knowledge. Your actions are dictated by your beliefs. Kant intends to develop the supreme principle of morality. It is supreme by basing it on the faculty Reggie Cabututan acted according to his moral (mental capacity) of reason. In this way, the binding conviction when he returned the luggage despite the force of obligation is no longer relative but universal. benefits he could get when he did not return it. It no longer depends on what a person’s historical, cultural, or religious circumstances are. Regie believed that it was the right thing to do. He must have believed the principle that it is right to do For as long as that person has the faculty of the right thing. Reggie could be holding on to his moral reason, the moral law is binding. conviction as a principle of action. This made Kant a key thinker in moral reflection. His moral conviction compelled him to commit to such action. On humans as sentient Perhaps, he was not thinking that he might receive an honesty award nor was he asking for it. In the first In considering the rational will, we have to point out the place, there was no promise of reward. difference between humans and animals. He just simply acted in accordance with what he believed was the right thing to do. Animals are sentient organisms. To have a moral conviction in doing the right thing Sentience refers to an organism’s ability to perceive means to be obligated by duty. and navigate its external environment, using its corresponding sense apparatus. LESSON 2: Duty and Agency Animals constantly interact with their surroundings, in 💡 Deontology is a moral theory that examines actions, whether or not they are done because of the same way humans do. Hence, humans are also sentient. duty. Humans – not only sentient but also rational Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct Deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate means “being necessary.” Hence, deontology refers to surroundings. This is the capacity for mental the study of duty and the necessity of fulfilling abstraction, which arises from the operations of the obligation. faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about what This triumph clarifies the meaning of rational will– the we are doing. We can remove ourselves mentally from capacity of a person to be the cause of her actions the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our based on reasons and not merely reactions to the actions and how such actions affect the world. environment and base impulses. Organisms are only sentient–they don’t have rational In philosophical discussions about human freedom, capacity. this capacity is called “agency”, which is the ability of a person to act based on her intentions and rational Since we are not only sentient but also rational, we deliberation. can imagine a different and better world. To go back to Reggie, when he saw the suitcase in the The first construction consists in how we imagine cab, he responded to that according to his rational will things can or should be– we can call that an – “I have to return this suitcase.” “ideation” or a mental model – then we implement that mental model in the second construction. He determined that it was his duty to return it inasmuch as his rational had conceived of such a duty. The second construction is about the notion that we His conception of duty may have come from what we do not only have the capacity to imagine and construct previously called “a first construction” of a world where mental images, but we also have the ability to act on– Reggie imagined a world in which it is right to return to enact and make real– those ideations or mental lost property to their rightful owners, no matter how models. tempting it is to keep it for oneself. 💡This ability to enact our thoughts is the basis for rational will. 💡Hence, to act according to a duty is a specifically human experience, which we call agency. And we understand that agency arises from rational will. The rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our 💡This is the starting point of deontology. We may reason. claim that as long as we have rationality, the tension between our base impulses and our rational will Our rational will is governed by our reason. shall often arise. Animals only act according to impulses, based on their This tension brings about our experience of duty, natural instincts. They act with immediacy. that we are obligated to act in a way that conforms to our rational will. However, since we know that they could not deliberate on their actions. Hence, we may say that animals do not “act” but only “react” to their external surroundings and internal impulses. ON CONTRARY, we humans have reason, which can intervene between impulse and act. We have the ability to evaluate our actions according to our principles. We are not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of and deliberating on the ways to act according to certain rational principles. Ex. You feel lethargic and your eyes are droopy. The impulse is to close your eyes and fall asleep. However, your rational will demand something else. Perhaps, you have to finish reading so you struggle to keep awake. As you keep yourself awake, fighting your sleepiness, your rational will is victorious over your bodily impulses. LESSON 3: Autonomy makes an action morally worthy because the individual acts out of respect for the law they Kant claims that the property of the rational will is rationally recognize as binding. autonomy, which is the opposite of heteronomy. Will as Author of the Law These three Greek words are instructive: - Since the will follows only those laws it has set Autos - self for itself, it can be considered both bound by Heteros - other the law and the source of it. This self-imposed Nomos - law nature of the law is what gives it authority and makes moral actions freely chosen rather than When we combine autos and nomos, we get merely obeyed. autonomy; heteros and nomos to heteronomy. Crudely stated, autonomy means self-law (or self-legislating) In essence, Kant’s view is that true moral freedom and heteronomy means other-law. comes from acting according to self-imposed, rationally derived laws, rather than from obeying laws Liza and Ryan as a kid: they are threatened or out of mere compulsion or external pressure. This is encouraged by their parents to brush their teeth. It is the foundation of his concept of moral autonomy: a not through their own volition that they brush their rational being is both a subject of the moral law and teeth but only because their parents tell them to. the author of that law. Hence, they are not autonomous. They became autonomous when as they grew up, they finally reflected on the whole business of brushing 💡 Kant describes autonomy as the will that is subject to a principle or law. one’s teeth. Both concluded that they 1) Agree with and will conform to the reason On the other hand, heteronomy is the simple behind it (oral hygiene) and thus; legislation and imposition of a law by an external 2) Every night, they impose it upon themselves to authority. Their parents are authority figures, and the brush their teeth before going to bed. law is imposed externally by rewards or punishments. Number 1 refers to the act of legislating a principle, Heteronomy vs Autonomy while number 2 refers to the enacting principle. Thus, this refers to the willing of the adopted principle into The distinguishing point here is the locus of the reality. This is autonomous. authorship of the law. In any given scenario where a person complies with the law, we ask where the author Kant’s concept of the Autonomy of The Will is, whether it is external or internal. Kant argues that moral laws are binding not because If the author of the law is external, the will is subjected they are imposed externally, but because they arise to an external authority, thus, it is a heteronomous will. from our own rational will, which legislates these laws In contrast, if the author were the will itself, imposing for itself. the law unto itself, then we describe the will as autonomous. The Will is Subject to the Law For the 25-year-old versions of Ryan and Liza, who - Kant believes that moral agents (those brush their teeth before going to bed without any capable of reasoning about right and wrong) prompting from their parents, their adoption of the are obligated to follow moral laws. However, childhood law about toothbrushing makes the locus of these laws aren’t imposed by an external the authorship internal. Thus, they are not authority. Instead, they come from reason autonomous. itself, which means that every rational agent can understand and recognize them. When you have adopted a certain principle, you already make it your own and that serves as your Self-Legislating rational will–the very reason for your action. You do not - Kant’s claim that the will “gives the law to need to be told already because the adopted principle itself” refers to this idea of autonomy. Instead is already in you and you make decisions based on of moral laws coming from outside us, we your own, not because other people induce you so. impose these laws on ourselves through rational deliberation. This autonomy is what Going back to Reggie’s case: What if Reggie did not Rationality is the mental capacity to construct ideas return the suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took and and thoughts that are beyond our immediate sold its valuable contents? Is this not an act of rational surroundings. will? Can we not claim that Reggie’s rational will determines for itself how it enacts its duty in this Now, this mental capacity is what makes the alternative scenario? intervention possible between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason, a person can break the Is Reggie still acting as an autonomous agent? immediacy of stimulus and reaction by stopping to Reggie could believe that he should benefit from deliberate and assess possible alternative actions. Trent’s loss because people who lose their things are careless, and thus, do not deserve to keep those For example, the initial reaction when you are walking things. on the road and someone bumps into you with a coffee in her hand and it spills onto your clothes, you will be Therefore, Reggie may have concluded, “I am entitled angry. But with our mental capacity, we can suppress to benefit from this lost suitcase. I am the author of this our anger and think about how to respond rationally. principle. I am acting autonomously.” He may conclude this since no external authority is legislating This example does not imply that people are not laws for him by using rewards or punishments–sounds affected by sensible impulses. The anger is present like autonomy but this kind of reasoning is not. but it does not immediately and automatically cause thee reactions. Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse. Again, human choice can be affected but is not determined by sensible impulses. 💡 Free choice - the choice that can be determined This implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduce to mere animality. This is where 💡 by pure reason Animal choice (arbitrium brutum) - determined by the correlative conjunction “not only, but also” is useful. 💡 inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) Human choice - a choice that is affected but not determined by impulse and is therefore in itself When we claim, “The human person is not only an animal, but is also rational,” we admit to two possible (without an acquired skill of reason) not pure, but causes of our actions: sensible impulses and the can nevertheless be determined to do actions from faculty of reason. Human freedom resides in that pure will. distinction. There is a difference between what determines a choice or decision, whether it is caused by sensible 💡 Is it always autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently self-legislated principle? impulse or by pure reason. Certainly not. Sensible impulses are usually bodily and emotional. 💡 Autonomy is a property of the will only during instances when the action is determined by pure Bodily instincts and desires – urge to eat, reason. drink, sleep, have sexual intercourse; human compulsions for survival 💡 When the action is determined by sensible impulses, regardless of its internal authority, it is heteronomous. Emotions and sentiments – jealousy, rage This is because a sensible impulse is “external” to one’s self-legislating faculty of reason. Kant Kant calls this set of actions that are caused by asserts that the action caused by sensible impulses sensible impulse, animal choice or arbitrium brutum. results always only in the heteronomy of the will because it is what he calls a “foreign impulse” On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason and Kant calls this the free THEREFORE, Reggie did not act autonomously when choice. he took the suitcase because it was his sensible impulse that propelled him to commit such action. Basically, human freedom resides in this capacity of reason to intervene, to “mediate” within arbitrium It could be greed or excitement of obtaining easy brutum. money without working for it. In such cases, a sensible impulse is akin to a “foreign impulse” that has the sam Kant endorses formal moral theory in his work the immediacy of an external authority figure that imposes Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork) its will on Reggie. in 1785, embodies a formal moral theory in wha he calls the categorical imperative – providing a procedural way of identifying the rightness or 💡 TO CONCLUDE: wrongness of an action. Heteronomy of the will - occurs when any foreign Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can impulse whether it is external (as in other persons at once will that it become a universal law. (Ak 4:421) or institutions that impose their will on the agent) or sensible (as in bodily instincts or base emotions) is Four Key Elements in the formulation of the what compels a person to act. abovementioned categorical imperative Autonomy - is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the cause of the 1) Action action. 2) Maxim 3) Will 4) Universal law Kant states that we must formulate an action as a LESSON 4: Universalizability maxim, whichh eh defines as a “subjective principle of action”. Kinds of Moral Theories Maxim - consists of a “rule” that we live by in our Substantive Moral Theory - immediately promulgates day-to-day lives, but it does not have the status of a the specific actions that comprise that theory. As such, law or a moral command that bands us to act in a it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward certain way. manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. Maxim depicts the patterns of our behavior. Thus, Ex. The Ten Commandments maxims are akin to the “standard operating Those that are stated in the form of a straightforward procedures” (SOPs) in our lives. We act according to a moral command: “Honor your father and mother,” or variety of maxims, even if we are not aware of them. “You shall not kill” We become aware of our maxims when we talk about Formal Theory - does not supply the rules or ourselves when we reveal our habits and the reason commands straightaway. It does not tell you what you behind them. may or may not do. Ex. When you arrive home from a tedious day at Instead, a formal theory provides the “form” or school and you have a lot of assignments to “framework” of the moral theory. Meaning, that it gives accomplish, you will opt to sleep after changing your criteria and procedures for determining one’s own rules clothes. This is to regain your energy so that you can and moral commands. work on your tasks later on. That’s your maxim. Metaphorically, in using a cookbook, we are given instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are Maxims are usually personal “policies” that may or not given the actual food, which would be may not be unique to us, but we act according to these “substantive.’ maxims nonetheless. To be exact, a formal moral theory will not give us a list Hence, Kant regards maxim as a subjective principle of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set of of action. We have many maxims in our daily lives, and instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral we live according to them. commands. Thus, the result of a formal moral theory is the ability to create a list of moral commands that I In the formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant myself have produced. calls our attention to the kind of maxims that we live by. Ex. You will not say that you should not steal. In formal He claims that we ought to act according to the maxim moral theory, you will only say that you should behave “by which you can at once will that it become a accordingly. universal law” What does it mean to will a maxim that can become a universal law? It means that the maxim must be 💡 Two ways to reject maxims: universalizable. This means nothing other than to The universalized maxim becomes: imagine a world in which the maxims, or personal rules 1. Self-contradictory that we live by are hypothetically adopted by everyone 2. The act and its purpose becomes as their own maxim. impossible 💡 OKAY SO, the gist here is that you should aspire or think of your maxim as something that could be When a universalized maxim is rejected and shown to be impermissible, they are irrational hence, immoral. adopted by everyone. In this way, if it could be universalizable, you could ensure that your maxim Rational permissibility on the other hand, refers to the follows the moral laws. intrinsic quality of an action that it is objectively and necessarily rational. The proper way to imagine the universalized maxim is not by asking, “What if everyone did that maxim?” but Using the universalizability test, we can reveal the by asking “What if everyone were obligated to follow objective necessity of an action as rational. that maxim?” In other words, you pretend as if the maxim were a law. The maxim “When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back.” If this maxim becomes a universal law, it means that it would be everyone’s obligation to follow it. There are two possibilities when we apply the maxim: it could either make sense or not make sense. BY “making sense”, we refer to the logical plausibility of the universalized maxim. The opposite of logical plausibility is self-contradiction or logical impossibility. If borrowing money without intending to pay were everyone’s obligation to comply with, what would happen to the status of the universalized maxim? The purpose of borrowing money would be defeated because no one will lend money. All lenders would know that they will not be paid and they will refuse to lend money. As a universalized maxim, it would self-destruct because it becomes impossible. We reveal the contradiction that occurs when we scrutinize the maxim because, after all, one contradicts oneself when one borrows money (implies intent to return) without intending to pay it back. Thus, we can conclude that the act of borrowing money without intending to pay is rationally impermissible.