KANT’S
DEONTOLOGY
AND
FRAMEWORKS
Presented by EJ FABRIGAS
DEONTOLOGY?
Kant’s Deontological Ethics Kant’s Ethics is now referred to as
deontological. The term deontological has its root from the
Greek “deon” which means “duty”. Hence deontological ethics
focuses on “duty, obligation and rights” instead of
consequences or ends. An act that proceeds from the will
which wills it because it can be the will of all is a right action.
Willing and doing the will of all is a duty, regardless of the
consequences.
THE FOLLOWING CLARIFIES KANT’S DUTY-BASED
APPROACH:
01
02 03
The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics, argued that
doing what is right is not about the consequences of our actions (something over
which we ultimately have no control) but about having the proper intention in
performing the action. The ethical action is one taken from duty, that is, it is done
precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligation are the
same for all rational creatures (they are universal), and knowledge of what these
obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behavior that are not
contradicted by reason.
02
Kant’s famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the “categorical
imperative”. It has a number of different versions, but Kant believed they all amounted to the
same imperative. The most basic form of the imperative is: “Act only according to that maxim
by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” So, for
example, lying is unethical because we could not universalize a maxim that said “One should
always lie.” Such a maxim would render all speeches meaningless. We can, however,
universalize the maxim, “Always speak truthfully,” without running into a logical contradiction
. (Notice that the duty-based approach says nothing about how easy or difficult it would be
to carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty as rational creatures to do so). In acting
according to a law that we have discovered to be rational according to our own universal
reason, we are acting autonomously (in a self-regulating fashion), and thus are bound by
duty, a duty we have given ourselves as rational creatures. We thus freely choose (we will) to
bind ourselves to the moral law. For Kant, choosing to obey the universal moral law is the
very nature of acting ethically.
THE DUTY
FRAMEWORK
Correspondingly, the duty-based approach can be applied as a framework
for ethical decision making:
In the Duty framework, we focus on the duties and obligation that we
have in a given situation ,and consider what ethical obligations we have and
what things we should never do. Ethical conduct is designed by doing one’s
duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the correct
actions.
This framework has the advantage of creating a system of rules that has
consistent expectations of all people; if an action is ethically correct or a duty
is required, it would apply to every person in a given situation. This even-
handedness encourages treating everyone with equal dignity and respect.
This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless
of outcome, so it allows for the possibility that one might have acted ethically,
even if there is a bad result. Therefore, this framework works best in situations
where there is a sense of obligations or in those in which we need to consider
why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain courses of action.
However, this framework also has its limitations. First, it can appear
cold and impersonal, in that it might require actions which are known to
produce harms, even though they are strictly in keeping with a particular
moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine which duty we should
follow if we are presented with situation in which two or more duties conflict.
It can also be rigid in applying the notion of duty to everyone regardless of
personal situation.
What is the difference
between duty and obligation?
Legally and Morally Right
It appears that in Kant, what is legal must be at the same time
moral. An action is legally right if it is at the same time in accordance
with universal law, that is, in accordance with the categorical
imperative. In another context, what is legal is not necessarily moral.
For instance, what is legal is limited to compliance with law, be it laws
of a state or country; but being moral may not be just following the law,
but doing more than what the law requires like responding to the need
of another.
Kant’s theory of right
According to Kant, the “universal principle of right” is that “an
action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance
with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each
can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal
law”. In other words, you exercise freely whatever rights you have on
your property but only in accordance with universal law. Universal law
means a maxim that can be the maxim of all. You can use, dispose,
enjoy its fruits, but only in such a way that you do not violate the rights
of others. This exercise of a right bearing in mind the obligation to
respect the right of others is tantamount to good faith or good will.
Good will
Kant says, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even of it,
which can be called good without qualification, except a good will”. Kant’s
criteria or framework of what is right or wrong is “good will”. An act is said to
be right or wrong depending on whether it is done with or without good will.
The rightness or wrongness of an action depends in one’s good will or
intention. The usual criticism , or weakness cited, regarding this concept is that
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions ”. Is good will enough?
Categorical imperative:
To serve the will as a principle Kant has two (2) versions of the categorical
imperative. The first version states “I never to act other than so that I could will that
my maxim should become a universal law”. If one cannot wish or what that a certain
rule or maxim becomes the maxim of all, that is not right to follow it. For instance,
one cannot will that “thou shalt steal” becomes a rule to be followed by all because
others may ultimately and steal his property. One cannot wish that “killing”
becomes the maxim of all because he would not of course wish that someone will
come to kill him.
Categorical imperative:
“I never to act other than so
that I could will that my
maxim should become a
universal law”.
Categorical imperative:
“I never to act other than so
that I could will that my
maxim should become a
universal law”.
Is the rule or principle of action
Something that must always be done in similar situations.
Categorical imperative:
What is the maxim of my
action?
The second version is as follows:
“Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a
means but always at the same time as an end.” Treating the another merely as a means to
an end means equating him to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside
another use, or can be sold or exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as
long as it is useful. Such act makes one a “user”. In contemporary philosophy, like Marcel or
Buber’s term, it is treating the other as an IT, a thing. That’s why they call the act as “thing-
ization.” In the parable of “Hope for the Flowers” by Trina Paulus, Stripe’s climbing the
caterpillar’s pillar to reach to top, where all that could be seen as a reward of climbing are
other caterpillar’s pillars, was no other way than stepping on other caterpillars as means of
moving up higher.
Categorical imperative:
“Always treat humanity,
whether in your own person
or that of another, never
simply as a means but always
at the same time as an end
and never as a mere means.”
Categorical imperative:
“Ends-in- ourselves”
Ought implies Can. This means the If and only if we can or are free to act in certain ways
can we be commanded to do so. This is one more moral principle ascribed to Kant, derived
from two passages in his works. One is stated as follows: “For if the moral law commands
that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable
of being better human beings.” Another one states as follows: “The action to which the
“ought” applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions.” The Situation Ethics
author, Joseph Fletcher, used this maxim several times to illustrate his Situationism. In full
statement the saying would be, “If I ought to do something, then I can do it.” By way of logical
analysis, the statement means, one’s ability to do something is a necessary condition for his
being obliged to do it. In Fletcher’s terms, “you are obliged to do only what you can where
you are.”
“I can” may also be interrupted to mean one’s degree of freedom, if by freedom
we understand as what Hornedo said about it, “the autonomous energy being.”
Since the degree of one’s freedom is the degree of one’s responsibility. Hornedo
says, the stuff of freedom is energy or strength. It follows that the degree of one’s
obligation is also the degree of one’s freedom. One can no more be responsible
than what he can knowingly, freely, and voluntarily do
Presented by Donna Stroupe
CONCLUSION
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Vivamus sed vestibulum nunc, eget aliquam felis. Sed nunc
purus, accumsan sit amet dictum in, ornare in dui. Ut imperdiet
ante eros, sed porta ex eleifend ac. Donec non porttitor leo.
Nulla luctus ex lacus, ut scelerisque odio semper nec.
Borcelle University | 2025
Borcelle University | 2025
Thank You
Presented by Donna Stroupe
