Principles of Professional Ethics Deontological Ethics DR PHILLIP

Principles of Professional Ethics. Deontological Ethics DR. PHILLIP MEADOWS

Consequentialism and Deontology Compared Consequentialists claim that actions themselves are not inherently good or bad. ◦ Instead, some state of the world is good or bad. E. g. , pleasure and pain. ◦ Actions are good or bad when they result in more or less of this in the world. By contrast, deontologists claim that some kinds of actions are inherently good or bad. ◦ But not because of some consequences of the action. So, consider a crime, such as serious assault. ◦ Both theories may conclude that the action is wrong. ◦ But they will conclude it is wrong for very different reasons. Consequentialists and deontologists will also disagree about which actions are right and wrong.

The Patient Problem Should we kill a healthy patient to save the lives of five sick patients? ◦ Consequentialism seems to require this on some occasions. This seems contrary to many people’s moral intuitions. Some want to say that this kind of action is bad, no matter what the consequences. But why? “It violates the healthy patient’s rights” is only part of an answer. Why does it violate their rights?

The Trolley Problem One person Five people According to the consequentialist, we should change the direction of the trolley. The problem: it is performing some action, knowingly, which results in the death of the person. The Fat Man case: what if the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a fat person onto the track to stop the trolley? The deontologist will want to say that such an action is bad. But why?

Deontology and Immanuel Kant Historically, deontological ethics in philosophy was heavily influenced by the 19 th century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant urged that an action is good or bad, depending of the intention or will of the person acting. ◦ Not the consequences of the action. "It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will. " (Kant, Groundwork For A Metaphysics of Morals)

Deontology and Immanuel Kant For Kant, whether an action has moral value or not depends on the intention or will of the agent. ◦ So, you could have two identical actions, performed for different reasons. One might be moral, the other non-moral. ◦ Note: this is not the same thing as immoral. Immoral actions are contrary to what is morally required. Kant distinguishes between: 1. 2. 3. Actions contrary to duty: immoral actions. Actions simply in agreement with duty: these actions are not morally valuable. Actions motivated by duty: these actions are morally valuable.

Deontology and Immanuel Kant So, for Kant, what makes an action good or not? ◦ It is the intention of the agent. Kant has two ideas: ◦ Idea 1: The intention has to be universalisable. ◦ What would happen if everyone acted on the basis of such intentions? ◦ Kant thinks certain kinds of actions are incoherent when they are universalised. E. g. : lying. ◦ The intention might be: I will lie whenever it is in my best interest to do so. ◦ Can this coherently be willed to be a universal law of action? ◦ No, says Kant: because if everyone made lying promises all the time, no-one would ever believe anyone. This would undermine the purpose of making promises. ◦ Kant’s idea is that some intentions render the actions incoherent, when we try to use them as a basis of a system of behavior.

Deontology and Immanuel Kant Idea 2: Respect for persons: ◦ ◦ Another of Kant’s ideas is that moral actions involve respect for each person’s ‘humanity’. For Kant, an agent’s ‘humanity’ is her ability to employ reason to decide her own actions. So, for Kant, moral actions respect the autonomy of individuals. Immoral actions do not respect this autonomy. Example 1: lying. ◦ Lying involves using another person’s rational faculties solely as a means of getting what you want. ◦ It fails to treat their ability to choose for themselves with respect: as an end in itself. Example 2: murder. ◦ Murder is the most extreme form of failing to respect the agency of another. ◦ How does this relate to the trolley case?

Some Problems: What Makes An Agent? The idea of respect for persons has been highly influential. ◦ But why should we respect persons? ◦ For Kant, it is because we have the ability to use reason to guide our actions. Not all human beings have this sophisticated ability: e. g. young children; severely mentally handicapped. For Kant, this means that they do not enjoy the protection of being treated as an end. ◦ So, according to Kant, we can lie to them, kill them, etc. without doing anything immoral. We don’t need to accept Kant’s view about what makes something deserving of respect. However, there is a wider problem: ◦ Is it possible to think of a criterion for moral agency that fits our moral intuitions? ◦ Consciousness? Possible counterexample: people in comas. ◦ Being human? Possible counterexample: brain dead patients; higher mammals.

Some Problems: Does Agency Imply Value? Do all agents deserve to have their capacity for agency respected? ◦ Kant thinks that no matter how bad a person has been, this does not prevent them from being a moral agent. ◦ And consequently deserving of the same consideration as anyone else. ◦ This doesn’t mean that they can’t be punished, but means that the way they are punished must accord their agency due respect. (BUT: Kant believed in capital punishment!)

Some Problems: Moral Motivation Kant thinks that the intention of the action gives it moral value. But for Kant the intention must be based on rational recognition of the two ideas: universal law & respect for agency. If an action is performed on the basis of other motivations, such as love, compassion, etc. , it does not have moral value. This seems to strain many of our moral inclinations: ◦ E. g. , saving one’s mother from drowning is not morally valuable.

Some Problems: Absolutism ‘Better that… the whole people should perish’ than injustice be done. For ‘if justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world’ (Kant, The Doctrine of Right) This also strains our moral inclinations. But is it possible to specify in a non-arbitrary way the limit of moral rights?

Questions 1. What is the trolley problem? Do you agree that it provides support for a deontological approach to ethics? 2. What does Kant mean when he claims that only a good will can be considered good without exception? Do you agree? 3. Explain Kant’s idea that the maxim on which an action is based must be universalisable. Can you think of an objection to this claim? 4. What does Kant mean when he says that we must treat humanity in persons as an ends and never merely as a means? What is ‘humanity’, according to Kant? 5. What makes a person worthy of moral respect? 6. What do you think is the most challenging objection to Kant’s theory? What do you think he would say in reply to it?