Deontological ethics Each human beings should be treated

Deontological ethics

�Each human beings should be treated as an end. �Certain acts (lying, breaking promises, killing. . . ) are wrong in themselves. What is the point of departure?

�An intervention may be justified �If there are grave violations of human rights �If there are grave violations of international conventions/treatises � Intervention

�Should I lie to save a person from a difficult situation? �Should I kill a person to relieve her from severe suffering? �Should I break a promise if this can help someone in real trouble? � �One possible answer to these questions: no, because they imply violating moral duties or rights What is right?

�There are other considerations (like duties, justice, rights) than goodness or badness of its consequences that make an action right or wrong Deontological ethics

Immanuel Kant 1724 -1804

�Starts from a view of human nature: �Human being is autonomous �Human being is rational �Human beings can act from a good will Kant’s ethics

�A moral act is to act according to The moral law = the moral duty Not according to means – ends; ”If I do X. . then I will achieve Y”

�Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will be a universal law �Duties: �Do not lie �Keep promises �Etc �Critique: How to solve conflicts of duties? Categorical imperative I

�Act so that you treat humanity…always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means Categorical imperative II

�Rationality is important because only rational beings can choose the means and ends = what is valuable. . �To lie, to break promises and to kill = to use human beings as means Alan Donogan

�Respect for persons/citizens �To decide together to form a society �Ex John Rawls: A contract under a ”veil of ignorance” Contactariansim

Moral claims �of particular importance, �universal, i. e. they belong to every individual human being irrespective of nationality, race or sex, �equal; no human being has more human rights than any other. United Nations Declaration of Human Rights(1948) – gap between ideal and practice! What are Human Rights?

�Why are human rights prescriptive? Why do they oblige us? “So, if rights make sense at all, then the invasion of relatively important rights must be a very serious matter. It means treating a man as less than a man, or as less worthy of concern than other men”. (Dworkin, 1977) Human Rights and Human Dignity

�The idea of human dignity – that each human being is worthy of respect or concern - is justified in different ways in different moral traditions, �most of the justifications come down to human traits of rationality, agency, freedom and morality, or “sacredness”. �human dignity, and as a consequence human rights, are justified through an “overlapping consensus” of different moral doctrines.

Answer from theories of �Human needs �Human capabilities �Human flourishing Common human nature – but the way these needs etc will be fulfilled will differ depending on cultural context: the need for nutrition will be met by rice and curry in India and by tapas in Spain! What should count as human rights? What is of such significance for human life?

�Human Rights as universal moral standards: Minimalism: a limited number of “urgent” human rights (life, prohibition of slavery and torture) Maximalism: an extended number; e. g. “democratic participation”, “…a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing. . ” (§ 25) etc Argument for maximalism: both kinds of rights (political and economic) contribute to human flourishing! Human Rights Minimalism vs Maximalism

�Interactional conception: relation between right-holders and duty-bearers (individuals or social agent) �Institutional conception: focus on social institutions and basic structure: do they protect and fulfil human rights? Rights implies Duties

�Is the human rights rhetoric based on Western Individualism? Ex Muhammed Mahathir (Malaysia) ”Asian values” stresses community rather than individual rights Critique