Deontology (Kantian Ethics)
THEME 4
Study material for Theme 4
• These slides!
Harris, et al. 2019. Engineering Ethics (6th
edition)
• Pages 43-48
• Pages 227-228 (Ford Pinto case study)
Theme 4 overview
• The problem of instrumentalization
• What is deontology?
• Kant’s moral philosophy
• The Categorical Imperative
• The enquiring murderer
• Implications for the engineering profession
• Limitations of Kantian ethics
• Ford Pinto case study
• Respect for Persons
• The Golden Rule test
• The self-defeating test
• The rights approach
Are there
actions/behaviours that are
forbidden (unjustifiable),
regardless of context or
personal preferences?
The problem of instrumentalization
• Utilitarianism – the ends justify the means
• Note, Utilitarianism is not saying that an immoral/bad action
is permissible if it maximises utility; the action that
maximises utility IS the morally correct/good action
• Problem: the theory too easily permits actions we know to
intuitively wrong in service of the greater good
• There is nothing internal to the theory that can assess the
morality of an action, other than its consequences
• Focus only consequences/maximisation of utility can be at
odds with respecting individual rights/interests
What is Deontology?
• From the Greek deon = duty, obligation and logos = science,
study
• Duty/rule-based approach to ethical decision making; focus is on
our actions; what we should or shouldn’t do (rather than
consequences)
• Point of departure - some acts cannot be justified by their effects,
regardless of how morally good their effects are, some
actions/choices are morally forbidden
• But what is our duty? - To follow particular moral rules (norms /
principles / standards) that we have given authority to
• Examples - religious rules (Ten commandments), natural law,
common moral precepts e.g the wrongness of murder, cheating,
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
• Immanuel Kant; German
philosopher (1724-1804)
• Absolute/universal vs
contingent moral principles
• Kant sought moral principles
that do not rest on
contingency (context) –
principles that apply to all
people in all situations at all
times
• For him moral principles are
• Kant - our duty is to follow the rules
• What rules? - the Categorical Imperative; a single moral
principle that should guide our actions and moral decision-
making:.
• But why should we follow the CI?
• Kant’s conception of human nature:
Humans:
• Have reason (rational will)
• Are (morally) autonomous (self-governing)
• Have intrinsic worth (human dignity)
• And are therefore possessed of equal worth and
deserving of equal respect
The Categorical
Imperative
• What we then follow are the dictates of
reason:
• The CI is a principle that every rational person must
accept
Two formulations:
CI 1: Act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law (universalisation
principle)
CI 2: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that of another, always as
an end and never as a means only (respect for
persons principle)
Determining what I
should do
• First ask what is the general rule that I
will follow if I actually did it
• This rule is the “maxim” of your act
• Then ask: what happens if this maxim is
universalized?
• Two criteria of assessment; would
universalization result in:
• Contradiction or self-undermining?
• If yes, then your maxim (action) is
forbidden, if no then it is permissible
Examples
• If you borrow money and promise to pay it back even if you
know you can’t… (making false promises)
• Lying…
• What rule are you following?
• This maxim cannot be followed at all times by everyone
• Why?
• Because it would be contradictory and self-defeating! (Always
lie-Always tell the truth)
Kant’s case against lying –
recap
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law”
• In the case of lying what moral law(s) are we willing?
• It is permissible to lie AND people should tell the truth
• Why? Being able to lie depends on a default position of trust that people
(mostly) tell the truth; therefore to lie I must universalize the maxim that
people should tell the truth (in order to get away with my lie). However, I
must also universalize the permissibility of lying because that is the action
I am wanting to perform
• As rational beings we are bound by the law of non-contradiction (test for
contradiction)
• Also, if lying is universalised then truth telling becomes incoherent which
means lying becomes impossible (test if action is self defeating)
Other examples
• I don’t pay taxes, because I am a special case
• I cheat in exams, because I need higher marks to get a
better job
• Can any of these maxims be universalized?
• No. They would be self-defeating and/or self-
contradictory (unreasonable)
• They undermine the very aim of the act itself
The categorical
imperative is universal
• A universal rule must be such that all rational
beings would accept it regardless of whether
they are doers or receivers of action(s)
commanded by the rule
• Implies reciprocity but acting according to the
dictates of rationality is primary
• Resembles but is not the same as the so-
called “Golden Rule” of common morality:
treat others in the way in which you would like
to be treated. Why not?
Kant’s response
• Our behaviour should be guided by universal laws
that hold true in all circumstances
• With no exceptions!
• Consequences cannot be predicted with complete
certainty
• Lying “obliterates one’s dignity as a human being”
• Let consequences “come as they may”
BUT: can we not think of maxims that contain
qualifications which if universalized would not violate
the CI?
Never lie unless you would be willing for anyone else to
lie in the same circumstances OR always lie if doing so
saves the life of an innocent person
How should we act according to Kant?
• From a sense of duty
• What is our duty? – To follow the moral law (the CI guides us)
• When we do this, we are acting from a good will – i.e. doing the
right thing because it is the right thing to do
• This is not the same as doing the right thing because:
• it suits you or feels good
• you feel sympathy/empathy/guilt
• you (happen to) care
• You have a good character
• Actions only have moral worth if done from a sense of duty
• Why? – the above factors are all contingent (they could be
different)
• Your thoughts on the role of duty?
Implications for the professional realm -
what does it mean to treat a person as
an ‘end’?
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in that of another, always as an end and never as
a means only”
• Respect their rationality and autonomy, i.e.
• They should be able to make their own decisions
• Set own goals
• Define their own ends
• Respect them as moral agents
• Autonomy involves intention, freedom, and
understanding
• Denying someone relevant information is to deny their
Reflection: in what way can
we say that the ECSA Code
of Conduct is
deontological/Kantian? Can
you find traces of the
categorical imperative in it?
(look for words that reflect
it)
Criticisms of Kantian ethics
• Is morality absolute and universal in the way that Kant
assumes?
• Overemphasis on autonomy more present in the ‘Western’
worldview (moral imperialism rather than univeralism)
• Problem with the idea of ‘man as rational animal’
• Historically been used to exclude some groups of persons
from personhood
• Duty as sole source of moral worth, but what about conflicting
duties?
• When is someone truly a ‘means’ to others’ ‘ends’? Aren’t we
all, in a sense, when we engage in any profession?
• Still: respect for persons is a powerful standard
Ford Pinto: quick recap
• Some important points to reflect on:
• Engineers knew drivers were taking a risk that they (drivers)
were unaware of
• Car met safety standards at the time of production, but new
standards (20mph) were going to be implemented in 2 years
that the car would not meet
• Management did not share safety concerns – wanted a cheap
car that could compete with Japanese models
• Imagine you are an engineer working on this project – what are
your duties? How does your general duty (under the Kantian
approach) apply to this specific situation?
• Standard of care
Respect for Persons (RFP)
• Avoids problem of instrumentalization (in consequentialism)
• Those actions or rules are morally right that regard each
person as worthy of respect as a moral agent.
• Moral agency – from our rationality and autonomy; we are
able to make decisions and freely act on them, and we are
responsible for those actions and decisions. Equality.
• Three approaches to respect for persons – tests to determine
whether a specific action or principle satisfies the RFP
standard
The Golden Rule Approach
• The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be
treated; don’t treat others in a way that you wouldn’t want to
be treated
• The Categorical Imperative (especially first formulation) =
related to (but not identical to) GR
• Idea of universal acceptability
• Universalizability implies reversibility – if I act in a certain
way, I would be OK with others acting in a similar way
towards me
• Works as a test – when considering specific action, ask
‘Would I be OK with it if everyone else acted in this manner?
Would I be OK if someone did this to me?’ – if NO, then it is
Limitations of the Golden Rule approach
• Some people think they are the exception to the rule –
egoism
• the results of using the Golden rule as a test of what is
morally permissible may vary depending on the values and
beliefs of the actor/agent
• Possible solution: assume the values of the recipient
• BUT: results still skewed (just in a different direction)
• We have to look beyond recipient and agent – ask ‘Will this
action ensure respect for persons?”
• GR approach useful, but cannot by itself ensure RFP
The Self-defeating test
• Idea of universalizability – what if everyone started acting in
this way?
• Would I be able to perform this action if everyone else
started doing it too?
• Yes: morally acceptable
• No: not morally acceptable
• E.g. lying – to universalise lying would be self-defeating
(think back to Kant & inquiring murderer discussion)
• Action can be self-defeating in 2 ways:
• If others start doing it, you can no longer do it (lying)
Applying the self-defeating test to Ford
Pinto
1. Identify the action you want to test by the Self-Defeating
Test.
2. Ask whether the action would be self-defeating if everyone
did it, either because:
(a) the action could not be performed if everyone did it, or
(b) the purpose you have in performing the action would be
undermined if everyone did it.
3. If the action fails either (a) or (b), it is impermissible. If not, it
is permissible.
Limitations of this test
• Some immoral actions are not self-defeating – test will not
make us aware of it
• Test can be helpful, but does it ensure respect for persons?
• Universalizability can ensure that if someone is respected,
everyone is, but it does not yet ensure respect
The Rights Approach
• RFP: assumes that everyone has moral agency – rights
approach accords each individual the rights necessary to
exercise that agency and pursue their goal/end
• Negative interpretation: rights as barrier to protect from
infringement of moral agency
• Positive interpretation: rights entitle us to active support of
our interests
• Rights create duties/obligations
• Rights determined by questioning whether deprivation would
seriously interfere with person’s moral agency
Limitations of the Rights Approach
• What happens when rights conflict?
• Alan Gewirth’s hierarchy of rights:
• First tier rights: most basic; essential preconditions for
action
• Second tier rights: rights to maintain level of purpose
fulfilment already achieved
• Third tier rights: rights necessary to increase one’s level of
purpose fulfilment
Applying the rights test to Ford Pinto
1. Identify the action or rule to be to be evaluated.
2. Determine what options are available and what rights are at
stake in each of the options.
3. Determine the place in the hierarchy of rights of the rights at
stake and whether the rights are violated or infringed
4. Identify the action or rule that will produce the least serious
violations or infringements of the most significant rights.
5. Make a choice that seems likely to produce the least serious
rights infringements or violations, all things considered
Alan Gewirth’s
hierarchy of rights
• First tier rights: most basic;
essential preconditions for action (life,
physical and mental integrity)
• Second tier rights: rights to
maintain level of purpose fulfilment
already achieved
• Third tier rights: rights necessary to
increase one’s level of purpose
fulfilment
