Deontological Theory of Ethics. Immanuel Kant.
we're delving into the concept of morality. Have you ever wondered what actually defines something as good or bad?
Deontology is an ethical theory that states some actions are right or wrong in themselves regardless of their consequences. Deontological ethics is contrasted with consequentialism, which is an ethical theory that asserts what makes an action right or wrong is the outcome of the action, not the action itself.
Many of us prioritize intentions when assessing morality, focusing on whether the act itself is inherently good or bad rather than its outcomes. Positive consequences from a negative deed don't automatically make it virtuous, and vice versa. Take the example of the first neighbor causing destruction-despite the negative outcomes, many of us might still see him as morally upright due to his good intentions. This suggests that our initial judgment of an action's morality is primarily based on intentions, more than the results following thereafter.
the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, is the most important thinker associated with deontology. Kant's key argument based on the belief that the morality of actions is not determined by their consequences but rather by the motives of the individual performing them. According to Kant, ethics is about having a good will, where the only way an action is deemed morally right is the will or motive of the person involved.
As it is, deontological ethics sounds pretty logical, but at the same time, it's a utopian idea, and I'll explain why.
As mentioned earlier, according to deontological ethics, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. If an act is considered immoral, there are no circumstances under which the act can be considered morally acceptable. For example, individuals are obligated to tell the truth even if doing so might lead to unfavorable results.
Kant strongly argues that "a lie always harms another; if not a human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, as it undermines the very source of right." But imagine that by telling a lie, you could save a life. Would you do it? Kant would probably say you shouldn't, insisting that you're morally obligated not to lie, even if a murderer is at your door asking about your family.
This leads us to a significant point-there are things that are considered morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances. for example, it is always wrong to kill someone, no matter what the outcomes might be, right? Now, imagine if we could go back in time to prevent someone like Hitler from causing harm, perhaps by intervening while he was a teenager. According to consequentialism, there's no doubt that it would be the right thing to do because the result is saving the lives of millions. However, deontologists, including Kant, would view this act as immoral. In their ethical framework, murder is inherently wrong, regardless of potential positive outcomes such as saving lives.
Consider another scenario: a person with a gun enters a school, putting innocent lives at risk. In such a situation, the only way to stop them might involve shooting, which we universally agree is morally wrong. However, faced with this dilemma, should the guard shoot? Many would argue that it's the right thing to do.
These examples highlight the moral dilemmas inherent in deontological ethics, where certain actions are always considered wrong, even in situations that seem to justify them.