Introduction
The term Deontological is derived from the greek word „deon‟ which means obligation or duty. Deontological theories argue for the priority of the right over the good or the independence of the right form the good. Actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of the consequences that they produce. The ethics of Kant can be said to an outstanding example deductive or deontological ethics, which regards duty as the fundamental concepts of ethics. It is not teleological, which regards end or purpose as the fundamental concepts of ethics.
The concept of Deontological Theory:-
Deontological ethical theory first proposed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant based on the idea of moral duty. It asserts that a good will is the only intrinsically good thing and that an action is only good if performed out of duty, rather than out of practical need or desire. This was based on Kant's emphasis on reason for developing moral laws and his belief in the need to be able to universalise moral decisions, which led to the principle of the categorical imperative. Kant proposed five formulations of his ethical theory: The Categorical Imperative, from which all other formulations were derived, states that moral actions must be performed out of duty to the moral law. The Formula of Universal Law asserts that the principles behind an action must be univers if I able. The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself ensures that the motivation behind every action must be the good of humanity; this was the basis he gave to the categorical imperative. The Formula of Autonomy expresses the idea that a rational agent is bound to the categorical imperative by their will, rather than any outside influence. The Kingdom of Ends suggests that moral agents should act as if their maxims will set the laws in a 'Kingdom of Ends'.
The Kant Deontological Theory can be expressed by some ideas. That’s are:Duty
Morality always appears to us in the „dry and earnest‟ form of duty. No moral philosopher before kant had placed so much emphasis on the notion of duty., and few concepts have greater prominence in his theory. More over in this regard he continues to exercise a profound influence on both the bocabulary and thought of moral philosophers, so it is crucial for us to know what kant meant by the term.
Under the the term „duty‟, kant elides three distinct but related ideas, all presupposing the context of conflict between the moral law and desires. First, he defines duty as “nothing other than the will‟s limitation and the requirement of a universal legislation” in the sense, the term „duty‟ refers to the Categorical Imperative itself and to its constraining relation to our will. Second, Kant also calls all the actions, maxims of actions, and the ends commanded by the Categorical imperative our „duties‟. There are many such duties- fidelity to contracts, beneficence, honesty, and so on.
Finally, Kant uses the term „duty‟ to refer to the only motive of specifically moral quality, consisting of a law abiding disposition (Gesinnung) of respect for and submissive obedience to the Categorical imperative in the face of opposition from the desires and inclinations. Since dutifulness or conscientiousness abstracts from any ends we may desire it like the moral law itself, ls a purely formal requirement for morally good choice. It requires us to comply with the moral law aus pflicht, because it is the moral law, out of respect for it, regardless of anything further we may or may not achieve by doing so.
Categorical Imperative
In his analysis of human agency in general, kant maintain that because that we are only contingently rational, all practical rules always appears to us as commands or imperatives , telling us how we should or should not act ln order to act rationally. Since we are often tempted to act contrary to reason even in matters of self-interest all prudential rules appear to us in the form of imperatives, albeit hypothetical ones that we can rationally avoid following merely altering our desires. Since we also are often tempted to act immorally, the law of autonomy and all particular moral rules appear to us as imperatives. But because moral imperative only own our reason and because they require us to regard our desire as irrelevant to what we should to, we can‟t ascape the right right of moral rules to obligate us. They are genuine laws. There is only one legitimate reason that can exempt an agent from the law of Autonomy, namely, the excuse „this is not a rational agent‟ we in fact do use this plea to exempt animals, small children and profoundly emotionally disturbed or mentally disappointment adult from moral responsibility. But we many not use this excuse for ourselves. With imperfectly rational agents such as ourselves mind, kant define and objective princi ple „one which would also serve subjectively as a practical principle for all rational beings if reason head foul control over the faculty of desire‟. In its from the as the categorical imperative, the law of autonomy commands us, act autonomously, that is on the basis of own reason alone.‟ Since it also obligates everyone like us, it can be paraphrased as: “act in such a way that the maxim of your which all other autonomous agents may also act.” Although we also have positive duties, the categorical imperative so frequently obligates us to deny our desire that we typically become aware of it as a prohibition. Kant tries to make the moral law or categorical imperative more definite by laying down the following maxims:-
(1) The formula of universal law :- “act only according to that to that maxim by which we can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.‟‟
(2) The formula of humanity :- “act so that we treat humanity whether in our own or in that of another always as an end and never as a means only” (3) The formula of the relm of ends:- “All maxims, ought to harmonise with possible relm of ends.” Thus according to Kant , actions are right only when they are done for the sake of “duty for duties sake “ is the true rule of life.
A “good will”
Although morally significant actions may be considered one by one,each is also but a momentary expression of an underlying and unifying moral character. The supreme individual practical end or good to be produced is a morally virtuous character or what Kant calls “a good will” .Unlike the qualities of the prudential person ,a morally good will is “absolutely and in every respect good and the supreme condition of all good “ As Kant‟s “ first proposition” in the Groundwork states , a good will is” good through willing alone – that is, good in (himself or herself ).” His or her cha racter is intrinsically and unconditionally good. It has “inner worth “or dignity because the person‟s willing is good in itself, not because of what the person actually “effect or accomplishes “in the world .What makes a person‟s willing intrinsically good is that person‟s ultimate moral disposition – the adoption of the Law of Autonomy as his or her overriding practical maxim. We shall discuss the nature of the good will in more detail. Autonomy
In Kant moral theory it is usually possible to use the word “autonomy” in place of “freedom”. An autonomous person is one who judges and acts freely ln both the negative and positive senses of “freedom” by principles of reason alone.
“ Autonomy” is often used not only as a moral but also as a psychological “pro-word”.In the humanistic theories of Abraham Maslow,Carl Rogers,and Lawrence Kohlberg,for example,it is used to designate the main characteristics of the psychological ideal of a mature- a “self actualizing” or “fully functioning”-person.However ,in those theories,the term tends to function more like Kant‟s principle of prudence than the law of morality.The emphasis is mainly on the particularity of each person,and further,on each person‟s unique complex of subjective needs, and desires. The term “Autonomy” is also used to refer to what is often regarded as an absolute right of persons to make their own decisions and to control their own lives without inference by others. During disagreements,the term “autonomy “has such powerful connotations that it is often used as an “argument stopper”;to accuse someone of not respecting another right of autonomy is to condemn the first person‟s actions as bad – often as morally bad. These contemporary uses of “autonomy” do bear some resemblance to their Kantian ancestor,for,like Kant‟s notion, they require the exercise of practical reasoning. They also reflect the conviction that the autonomous person must be responsible, that is, self-governing; and,further they rule out certain kinds of coercion by others. But there the similarities end for kant‟s idea of autonomy like that of freedom is far more precise and restricted than the present day notion. Influences on Kantian ethics The philosopher Louis Pojman has suggested four strong influences on Kant's ethics. The first suggested is the Lutheran sect Pietism, to which Kant's parents subscribed. Pietism emphasised honesty and moral living over doctrinal belief, more concerned with feeling than rationality. Kant believed that rationality is required, but that it should be concerned about morality and good will. Manfred Kuehn, Kant's biographer, suggested that the values Kant's parents held, of "hard work, honesty, cleanliness, and independence”, set him an example and influenced him more that their Pietism did. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michael Rohlf suggested that Kant was influenced by his teacher, Martin Knutzen, himself influenced by the work of Christian Wolff and John Locke, and who introduced Kant to the work of English physicist Isaac Newton. Pojman also suggested that Kant was influenced by the political philosopherJean-Jacques Rousseau and that his work, The Social Contract , influenced his view on the
fundamental worth of human beings. Pojman suggested that Kant was influenced by the contemporary debate between rationalism and empiricism: rationalists believed that morality is a form of moral knowledge, while empiricists argued that morality is based on human desire. Kant rejected the idea that morality is based on human nature and argued that reason, rather than human desire, can determine what is moral. Finally, Pojman suggested that Kant was influenced by natural law and intuitionist moral theories.
Critics of Kantian ethics
G.W.F Hegel G.W.F. Hegel presented two main criticisms of Kantian ethics. First, he argued that Kantian ethics provides no specific information about what people should do because it only gives the universal moral law, which Hegel argues is nothing more than a principle of non-contradiction. He argued that Kant's ethics provided no content and so could not constitute a supreme principle of morality. To illustrate this point, Hegel presented a number of cases in which using the Formula of Universal Law provides no useful answers. Hegel's second criticism was that Kant's ethics would lead humans into internal conflict: between reason and desire. Suppressing our desires is, Hegel argued, unnatural. Arthur Schopenhauer Arthur Schopenhauer criticised Kant for believing that ethics is a practical philosophy. He attacked Kant's belief that ethics should concern what ought to be done, suggesting that the scope of ethics should not just be legislative and imperative. Schopenhauer argued that ethics should concern what actually occurs and attempt to explain and interpret this, rather than propose what ought to occur. For Schopenhauer, ethics should be about the construction of a moral framework based on the explanation of the world. Marcia Baron In her work on Kantian ethics, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology, the professor of philosophy Marcia Baron presented possible challenges towards Kant's belief in acting upon duty. She considered the position that acting out of duty can alienate an agent from the action and people involved, using Michael Stocker's example of a person (referred to as Smith) who visits his friend in hospital solely out of duty, rather than friendship. Baron suggested that, if Smith's
visit is out of duty to someone in the same group (a fellow Christian or church member, for example), there would be nothing wrong with visiting out of duty; she maintains that, if this is the case, Smith should not visit in the capacity of a friend if that is not what he intends. Baron argued that the situation would be different if Smith believes it is his duty as a friend to visit. In this circumstance, she suggested that although certain explanations as to why Smith would be acting out of duty could suggest moral repugnance, such explanations do not make acting out of duty intrinsically wrong. Catholic Church The Catholic Church has criticised Kantian ethics for its apparent contradiction, arguing that humans being co-legislators of morality contradicts the claim that morality is a priori. If something is universally a priori (i.e. existing unchangingly prior to experience), then it cannot also be in part dependent upon humans, who have not always existed The theory of the categorical imperative is, moreover, inconsistent. According to it the human will is the highest lawgiving authority, and yet subject to precepts enjoined on it.
