MORAL REASONING

Deontology: Categorical Moral Reasoning

Deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves and whether

a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right
or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right
takes priority over Good.

For example, if someone proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not
support agriculture in order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would
argue that this world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in
which it was brought about. A Consequentialist would (or could) argue that the final state of
affairs justified the drastic action.
Deontology may sometimes be consistent with Moral Absolutism (the belief that some
actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them), but not necessarily.

For instance, Immanuel Kant famously argued that it is always wrong to lie, even if a
murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim. But others, such as W.D.
Ross (1877 - 1971), hold that the consequences of an action such as lying
may sometimes make lying the right thing to do.
It is sometimes described as "duty-based" or "obligation-based" ethics, because
Deontologists believe that ethical rules bind people to their duty.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

Modern deontological ethics was introduced by Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century,
with his theory of the Categorical Imperative.

A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that

exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself.

He argued that the "highest good" must be both intrinsically good (good "in itself"), and
good without qualification (when the addition of that thing never makes a situation
ethically worse).

He concluded that there is only one thing that is truly good: a good will chosen out of a
feeling of moral duty and that must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances. He
considered it an unconditional obligation, regardless of our will or desires, and
regardless of any consequences which might arise from the action.

Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works and formulated it in three different
ways :
Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal
law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself or other), as
both the means of an action, but also as an end.
Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a
hypothetical "kingdom of ends", and therefore only in such a way that
would harmonize with such a kingdom if those laws were binding on all others.
Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: Results-Based Ethics
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by
its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed
among all people. It is, then, the total utility of individuals which is important here,
the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utility, after which the
doctrine is named, is a measure in economics of the relative satisfaction from,
or desirability of, the consumption of goods. Utilitarianism can thus be described
as a quantitativeand reductionistic approach to Ethics.

Utilitarianism starts from the basis that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically
valuable, that pain and suffering are intrinsically disvaluable, and that anything
else has value only in its causing happiness or preventing suffering
(i.e. "instrumental", or as means to an end). This focus on happiness or pleasure
as the ultimate end of moral decisions, makes it a type of Hedonism (and it is
sometimes known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism).

Utilitarians support equality by the equal consideration of interests, and they

reject any arbitrary distinctions as to who is worthy of concern and who is not, and
any discrimination between individuals.

It is a form of Consequentialism (in that the moral worth of an action is determined

by its outcome or consequence - the ends justify the means), as opposed
to Deontology (which disregards the consequences of performing an act, when
determining its moral worth), and to Virtue Ethics (which focuses on character,
rather than rules or consequences).

A real life example of Utilitarianism happened when General Curtis LeMay, at the
end of World War II U.S, ordered the firebombing of Tokyo which resulted in the
deaths of 100,000 civilians. Commenting on this decision he reportedly said it was
his duty to end the war as quickly as possible, thereby sparing possible further loss
of life. The New York Times reported: "[LeMay] declared that if the war is shortened
by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."
 TEACHERS REFERENCE
Arguments For Consequentialism:

Individuals don't generally have to carry out difficult research before they can take action
Individuals can shortcut their moral decision-making and are more likely to make decisions
in a quick and timely way
Consequentialism is flexible and can take account of any set of circumstances, however
exceptional.
Humans ought to make the world better, thus the best result in any action should bring
more happiness upon the world, confirming consequentialism.

Arguments Against Consequentialism:

Future Consequences are difficult to predict

Measuring and Comparing the Goodness of something is very difficult
It is easy to bias in favour of particular groups
It ignores things we believe ethically relevant

Arguments For Deontology or Categorical Reasoning:

Its laws are absolute and largely non-negotiable, which makes it very easy to live a normal
life while still adhering to the philosophy.
Deontological ethics is more enforceable because there are clear violations of duty which
will be punished by whoever has been wronged.
Common sense is deontological. Before doing philosophy, we think that promise-breaking
is obviously wrong in itself, not wrong because of any discomfort it causes, or any badness
it brings about.

Arguments Against Deontology or Categorical Reasoning:

Deontology is often criticized for its support of unbending obedience at the expense of the
original intent of the rules.
The instruction to create rules which should be universal is vague and subject to the
potentially flawed opinion of anyone using it.
There are several moral principles that make acts right or wrong, but they can conflict, and
to know what's right overall you have to weigh them up against each other. The principles
tend to make acts right, but they don't absolutely guarantee it.