Deontological Moral Systems: Principles and Absolute Conclusions - Essay Example

Duty-based ethics Deontological theories focus on moral rules or duties. It requires individuals to adhere to independent moral rules. Deontological theories demand those who want make the correct moral choices to understand their specific moral duties. Furthermore, the people should understand the rules that regulate the moral duties (Richard & Yvonne 100). According to the theories, the people who stick to their duties are behaving morally. Those who do not follow their duties are behaving immorally. God determines all these rules and duties. Therefore, people who follow their duties and do not break the rules are obeying God (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). The deontological moral systems define the reasons why certain actions are performed. Additionally, the systems do not approve following the correct moral rules as sufficient. It demands the people to follow the moral rules with the correct motivation. Furthermore, only the correct motivation could not justify the action in a deontological moral system. Nevertheless, a correct motivation cannot describe if an action is morally correct and cannot determine the correct duty to follow. Deontological moral systems determine duties and obligations objectively. It does not support a subjective determination of duties because many adherents do not support subjectivism. It is important to note that deontological theory moral principles are separated from their consequences. It means if a person has a moral duty to lie; then lying is wrong. Many researchers call deontology the “science of duty”. The word deon is a Greek word meaning duty, and lagos means science. The words deon and lagos makeup the word deontology. There are key questions in deontological ethical systems. The key questions include “what is my moral duty?” “What are my moral obligations?” And “how do I weigh one moral duty against another?” Examples of deontological ethical theories include divine command, duty and rights theories, monistic deontology and contractarianism,. Divine command set their moral obligations from a god. For examples, the Muslims believe an action is morally correct whenever it goes hand in hand with the rules established by Allah. Duty theories define their action as morally correct if it abides by some list of duties and obligations. Duty based theories are the most successful and the strongest. Rights theories define an action to be morally correct if it respects the human rights. Contractarianism defines an action to be morally right if it abides by the rules that rational moral agents would observe when entering a social relationship. Monistic deontology defines an action is morally right it abides by some single deontological principle that guides the other subsidiary principles (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). There are many factors that make duty theories the most successful. The theory demands an action to abide by some list of duties and obligations if it wants to be morally right. Immanuel Kant was the philosopher behind Kantian duty based ethics. According to Kant, it would be possible to use reasoning in development of a consistent moral system. Kant taught people on the importance of seriously discussing in a philosophically rigorous manner his reasoning. He assured the people that they would realize all rational beings had to observe some moral laws. Additionally, the rules would apply to any rational beings in any universe that may exist. Kant was rather optimistic when he argued that every rational human being does not need to depend on God, or anything else to know what is either right or wrong. Kant taught in a philosophical and a difficult way. However, he believed it was the right way to communicate his message and he were helping the people deal with moral challenges (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). It is evident Kantian ethics are spoken in terms of duty and doing the correct thing. Despite these characteristics, Kant believed what was good was an important part of ethics. Kant thought there is nothing that everybody could rationally agree it was good. According to his argument, experts believe Kant wanted a good thing to be good in whichever context. Things that people think are good are not always good. Kant further explained what is good meant for human conduct. He taught that an action is right if it is done in good will, regardless of their consequences. To clearly understand the sort of action that may be, Kant developed the test of the categorical imperative to determine whether an action is of good will. The categorical imperative was used by Kant properly to define the duty based ethics. He made the categorical imperative be the basis of other rules because the rule was true in all circumstances. There are two versions of the categorical imperative. Each of the versions explains the different aspects of the categorical imperative. Kant emphasized that the two versions are not different rules; they are the same rule. The first version demands moral rules to be universalisable. The rule demands the people to act in such that the maxim of their actions should become a universal law. It means if a person is unwilling to apply the ethical rule to everyone, including oneself, then it is not a moral rule (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). For example, if a person wonders whether he should steal, one has to test whether stealing is right by asking him whether he would want a universal rule that states its right to steal. Since majority of the people do not want a rule that allows stealing, the person concludes that it would be wrong to steal. The example means that if an ethical rule cannot be made a universal rule, then it is not a moral rule. The second version demands moral rules to respect human beings. Kant was a strong advocate for equality and believed that all human beings should be treated equally and freely as members of a shared moral community. The second version emphasized on the importance of treating all the people properly. Kant stressed on treating human beings as valuable. He denounced the idea of using people in order to achieve something else. People have to live freely without being forced to do things. The above explanation disapproves a comment such as “she is just using him” and emphasizes on the idea that “the end can never justify the means.” There are examples of treating human beings as means and not ends. The examples include, treating a person as an object, using a person to achieve what you want, and deceiving a person to achieve what you wish for. Kant did not want to say that people could not be used at all. It is not a bad thing to use a person provided they are also being treated as an end in themselves. Kant argued that people have to do the right thing for the right reason. The reason for doing the right thing is because of duty. If there are other reasons, then a person is not acting morally. For example, if a person does not commit murder because he was scared, not because it was not his duty, he has not acted in a morally good way. If there is another reason as well as duty, it does not stop the action from being right provided the duty was the reason for the action. It means if people do something because it is their duty, and duty has influenced their decision to act; then the people have acted morally. There is another type of duty-based ethics called the Rossian duty-based ethics. People believed Kantian duty based ethics were not suitable to the society because the society is filled with untidiness of many moral decisions. Philosopher W.D Ross came up with Rossian duty based ethics. The philosopher proposed two duties. They are the Prima facie duties and actual duties. The Prima facie duties are obvious duties. The duties are self-evident. The word prima facie is a Latin expression for ‘by first instance.’ Prima facie duties require a person to think about them and understand them to determine if the duties are correct. Prima facie duties have to be promoted. All things have to be considered. Additional, other prima facie duties could outweigh the prima facie duties. After the people have outweighed all other conflicting prima facie duties, they are left with the actual duties. Ross then listed seven prima facie duties. The first is fidelity. The duties of fidelity demand people not to engage in deception. The second is reparation. The duty of reparation requires the people to make up for the injuries they have caused to others. The third is gratitude. The duty of gratitude demands the people to grateful for the benefits that come in their way. The fourth is non-injury. The duty of non-injury demands the people not to harm others in any way, either physically or psychologically. The fifth is beneficence. The duty of beneficence demands a person to do well to the others in a manner that will improve their health, security, or happiness. The sixth is self-improvement. The rule of self-improvement requires a person to act in a manner that will promote ones own wellbeing, for instance happiness. The seventh is justice. The duty of justice demands a person to distribute the benefits and burdens fairly. Ross described prima facie duties as responsibility to us and to others. Furthermore, he explained that the balance of responsibilities determine what a person should do. There are some problems with the Rossian approach. According to experts, Ross ideas do not give the procedures of selecting prima facie duties to be involved in any particular case. Furthermore, people cannot compare and rank the prima facie duties in order to achieve a balance, which will guide the people at their actual duty. The above problems with Rossian approach add up to the problems with deontological ethics. The common problem with deontological ethics is that it does not provide a way to solve conflicts between moral duties. For example, a deontological moral system has to define the moral duty of not to lie, and to keep other people from harm. However, it is difficult for a person to choose between the two moral duties. In this case, majority of the people would choose the ‘lesser of two evils.’ It means depending on which of the two has the least consequence. The moral choice in the above example is not made on a deontological basis, but rather on a consequentialist basis (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). Deontological moral systems are consequentialist moral systems in disguise. The argument means duties and obligations in deontological moral systems are actions demonstrated to be the best consequence. After some time, the actions become part of the law, and people stop paying their attention to their consequences. Experts argue deontological ethics are rules where the people have forgotten the reasons for particular duties. Deontological moral systems are rules based upon absolutes. The rules base their development upon both absolute principles and absolute conclusions. Furthermore, deontological moral systems do not define how duties should be followed, and their consequences. For example, it evident the duties that were followed in the 18th century are not valid in the present time. However, there are no rules that define how to abandon the duties that are not valid (Richard & Yvonne 150-300). Work cited Richard Burnor, Yvonne Raley. Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases. OUP USA, 2010. Read More