Deontological Approach

Dr. Ching Wa Wong City University of Hong Kong saching@cityu.edu.hk

1

Using a person: a preliminary exercise

The trolley problem again.

Give a record of you feelings after seeing the

following pictures.

Ching Wa pushed you!

Help!

Part 1
Kant and deontological ethics

Deontology
The theory of duty or moral obligation.

Duty:

Role-related duty General duty Requirement set on a person because of his/her identity.

Obligation:

Basic Kantian themes

1. Personal autonomy: The moral person is a rational self-leglislator. 2. Respect: Persons should always be treated as an end, not a means. No persons should be used. 3. Duty: the moral action is one that we must do in accordance with a certain principle, not because of its good consequence.

Kants philosophy:
What can I know?

Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals (1785); Critique of Practical Reason (1788) Critique of Judgment (1790); Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793)
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
9

What ought I do?

What can I hope for?

Phenomena and Noumena

Phenomena:

things as they appear to us; empirical and therefore changeable. things-in-themselves, which cant be known by the use of senses.

Noumena:

Kant argues that if there is such a thing as

moral reality, it must be founded on the noumena, and this is because

10

The moral law is in its character absolute, and it can allow no exception. And empirical knowledge simply cannot establish such a law.

11

Part 2
Kants Conception of Moral Values

12

The moral worth

On Kants view, the moral worth of an action

is not determined by its consequences because:

13

1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil intention, but ends up bringing good consequences to society. 2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good intention, but ends up bringing about bad consequences. 3. The consequences of an action are not under our control. 4. We can only control our motives when acting as a moral person. 5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given by our good will.
14

15

The right motive

For example, it is always a matter of duty that a

dealer should not over charge an inexperienced purchaser; and wherever there is much commerce the prudent tradesman does not overcharge, but keeps a fixed price for everyone, so that a child buys of him as well as any other. Men are thus honestly served; but this is not enough to make us believe that the tradesman has so acted from duty and from principles of honesty: his own advantage required it;

16

 it is out of the question in this case to suppose that

he might besides have a direct inclination in favour of the buyers, so that, as it were, from love he should give no advantage to one over another. Accordingly the action was done neither from duty nor from direct inclination, but merely with a selfish view.
(http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/metaphys-of-morals.txt)

17

 The right motive can be a motive out of either:

self-interest, sympathy (natural inclination), or a sense of duty (the voice of conscience).

Only the final motive will count on Kants view.

18

Hypothetical Vs categorical imperatives

Hypothetical imperative:

What I ought to do if some conditions hold. E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I want to pass my examination.
What I ought to do unconditionally. E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter what goal I have.

Categorical imperative:

19

Two formulations of the categorical imperative

Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law. 2. Always treat humanity, whether your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.
1.

20

One Kants view, all moral imperatives are categorical imperatives. They are universally valid and have equal forces to EQUALLY FREE and RATIONAL AGENTS.

21

An example: why lying is wrong

If we use consequences as the basis of moral worth, sometimes lying is right because it makes a lot of people happy. But the maxim that supports lying cannot pass the universality test and the humanity test.

22

Lying is wrong because:

If everybody lies, then words lose its function to express truth. The principle of lying therefore cannot be universalized. 2. Lying can be successful only if we use other peoples ignorance. But in this case we are treating them only as a means to our ends.
1.

23

Freedom and the kingdom of ends

Given that all rational beings are equal, a kingdom

comprising those beings must not favour any party or treat the other as inferior. It follows that in the kingdom of ends everybody should be equally free and should not be a means to other peoples end. The law thus set up is a contract between free and rational agents.

24

Morality is thus a matter of social contract made between free and rational agents.

25

Part 3

Questions about Kantian Ethics

26

Motivational problems
Why should I obey to the moral law?

Answer: Because I want to be a wholly free (autonomous) person who acts on the principle that I find most reasonable.
Answer: This is simply because rational persons are equal.

Why should I respect other persons?

27

Freedom or equality?
Is autonomy or equality the fundamental

value in ethics? What if they conflict each other?

Answer: In principle they do not conflict each other, because both are built up in the idea of reason. But in practice?

28

Conflicts of duties
If duty A conflicts with duty B, how can they

be universalized? Example:

I have a universal duty not to kill the Fat man. I also have a universal duty to save the five workers. What should I do?

29

Non-rational beings
The moral law is set up by rational agents who

mutually respect each other. Non-rational beings such as animals are not protected by that law because they dont have this sense of responsibility. If we have a duty not to be cruel to animals, it cannot be for their sake, but for the reason that we will hurt our own rationality in doing so (that we will develop a bad personality in this practice).

30

Some questions to consider

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

1.
2. 3.

4.
5. 6.

Participatory democracy? Representative (market) democracy? Capitalism? Revolutionary Marxism? Confucian ethics? Anarchism?

31

Part 4

Application:
Research ethics

32

Using human beings in experiments

Stanley Milgrams experiment

Philip Zimbardos Stanford Prison Study

Main question:

When will be wrong to use a person in academic research?

33

The doctrine of informed consent

The Nuremberg code:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

34

Autonomy: A Kantian interpretation

By saying that we respect persons as autonomous

agents, we imply that they are having equal statuses with us, that we cannot treat them as a means only. Using somebody implies an imbalanced power structure, meaning that the users are

in a higher rank; have more power; have ends in the action plan that the inferior party cannot share.

35

Autonomy thus requires that if I am to be treated as a means, I must also be able to recognize the experimenters end as my end. If I can recognize the promoting of collective interests as an end that I share without contradiction, I can say being deceived is my choice.
36

Milgrams experiment
I am a learner. And I have to remember the SNOOPY words of the teacher and read them back.

Teacher, give him a punishment. A 15 volt electric shock.

APPLE--PEACH; LEMONHONEY; CARTRASH; DEMOCRACYPLATO; I am a teacher now. CHINGWA-CHINGWATEDDY BEAR Wrong!

Move on to the next word!

If it is experimentan some the part of lot, Another participant, experimenter theconduct In the answerlearnerafteryou sayto remember, If the incorrect you play words You are hired is correct, drawing to a give the by playsask part of a learner. teacher. him to read out after some time. and the an experiment.

37

The punishment part

High voltage: 450 Dangerous Low voltage: Medium voltage: 15 Do it. I am in 250

charge of all this.

You are in regret. Why machine generating a The experimenter You do instructing you to increase You control of a it accordingly.man? keeps didnt I stop, voltage learner screams and shows great pain. The ranging from 15 to 450 volts. voltage, saying that he takes full responsibility for that.

38

Milgrams trick
You fooled me? You are cheated, man. Theres no electric shock at all.

No one in fact got hurt. The learner is a great pretender.

You are angry. You think it thing is that The lucky thing, or the bad is unethical.
39

The Stanford Prison: A case study

40

Final questions
Which experiment is more unethical

according to Kantian ethics? Is the respect to autonomy something absolute? Is a lesser degree of autonomy totally unacceptable? How can we respect people when they are not fully rational?

41

References
Driver, Julia, Ethics: the Fundamentals,

Blackwell Publishing, ch.5 Mackinnon, Barbara (2007), Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Thomson Wadsworth, ch.5. Rachels, James (1995), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, ch.9 & 10.

42