DEONTOLOGY

Deontology is defined as a moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of a duty. It comes
from the Greek word deon which means “being necessary.” It refers to the study of duty and obligation
and is attributed to a German scholar and philosopher named Immanuel Kant. His main thesis was that
man has the faculty called rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles he himself has
determined. From his viewpoint, duty is one where man must see his fellow men as being worthy of
respect and dignity. Pain and pleasure to him, as consequences of human actions are irrelevant.

Rational will distinguishes man from animals. Although both are sentient creatures (organisms that
have the ability to perceive and navigate their external environment), and can therefore similarly react
to external stimuli and internal impulses to survive and thrive, the former has the faculty ( inherent
mental capacity) to think and construct ideas beyond his immediate surrounding but the same is absent
from the latter. Man, therefore has this mental abstraction which results from the operations of the
faculty of reason. He can imagine and make real and concrete what are in this imagination and the
ability to do this is the basis for rational will. Animals only act according to impulses based on their
natural instincts and cannot think and deliberate on their actions. In fact, they cannot act but can only
react to external environment and internal impulses.

Agency commonly refers to a person who is an agent of moral actions and has the ability to discern right
from wrong and can be held accountable for his own acts. Man has the moral responsibility not to cause
unjustified harm and agency is assigned to only those who can be held accountable for their acts.

Autonomy is a property of the rational will which means self-law (self-legislating). Example: an adult
man, without any external influence, motivation or imposition must eat and sleep. Heteronomy is the
opposite of autonomy which means the other law. Example: A child, with external influence from
parents, must eat and sleep.

The Concept of Universalizability

By way of introduction, there are generally two kinds of moral theories namely the substantive and
formal moral theories. A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions and
identifies the particular duties in a direct manner that should be followed by its believers. Example: the
ten commandments. A formal theory does not supply the rules or commands right away, but instead
provides a framework or criteria for determining, on one’s own, the rules or moral commands. Example:
prayers and reflections of one’s faith and spirituality can be done either at home or the church as long as
it is a Sunday.
Kant adopted the formal theory and called this the categorical imperative. He said there are four
elements of this imperative identified as action, maxim, will and universal law. The action has to be
formulated and pursued as maxims that depict man’s pattern of behavior but is not as law or moral
command that binds him. Rather, they are significant “standard operating procedures” that govern the
day to day lives of man and is a subjective principle of action. What makes these maxims universal then
is that the person adhering to and living by the precepts of the same thinks that his personal actions are
also the maxim of the rest of men in the universe. It is according to Kant, a mental act of imagining by a
person whose idea of a maxim or set of maxims is actually followed by everyone else. This is why Kant
holds the view that this universalized maxim could never be valid as a universal law of nature because it
cuts both ways: it is consistent with itself but also contradicting itself. Example: the act of borrowing
money (which implies returning it) but without the intention of paying it back makes no sense. It is both
consistent (the borrowing), and contradicting (the nonpayment), all in one singular act. Universal maxim
like this is rejected because according to Kant, it is impermissible, irrational and ultimately immoral.

In sum, Deontology has a significant contribution in our concept of ethics because it serves the purpose
of becoming man’s enlightenment morality as opposed to paternalism, a metaphor where a father
figure, because of benevolent authority and provider of sustenance and security, wields moral
ascendancy over his dependent children. Deontology neutralizes the pernicious influence of paternalism
by providing the light of reason when maturity and rational capacity take hold of the person’s decision-
making thus enabling him to become independent of or autonomous from the father figure.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual’s character as the key element of
ethical thinking rather than the rules about the autonomy of acts (Deontology) or the consequences of
such acts (Utilitarianism). It is an ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a
matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Plato and Aristotle were two renowned
philosophers of ancient Greece who had classic discourses about virtues. But Aristotle’s discussion of
virtue ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and the conception of the good, for
while both affirm rationality as the highest faculty of Man that enables him to realize the very purpose
of his existence, they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature. Plato’s thinking is that reality is
outside the realm of human experience but can be grasped by man’s intellect. The good and the truth
are in the sphere of forms and ideas transcending daily human conditions. On the other hand, reality for
Aristotle is found within man’s everyday encounter with objects of the world and what makes nature
intelligible is its character of having both form and matter. Therefore, the good and the truth cannot
exist apart from the object and are not independent from human experience.
Happiness and Ultimate Purpose

In Aristotle’s discourse about virtue ethics, he emphasized that the highest purpose and the ultimate
good of man is HAPPINESS or what the Greeks call eudaimonia. He took note that every act that a
person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim or what the Greeks called telos. Every act,
every pursuit and every endeavor have a purpose or goal and the aim is always to achieve good. He
added however that man does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose but to use and utilize the
same for a higher activity or goal, which can then be used to attain an even higher purpose and so on. In
the process, a hierarchy of purposes is formed.

This begs the question then as to what is the highest goal for Aristotle. What goal is for him both final,
self-sufficient and ultimate? Interestingly, he answered the question by saying that such a question can
be adequately answered by older individuals because they have gone through enormous and
challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge on what the ultimate
purpose of a person is.

Virtue as Excellence

Virtue, called arete by the Greeks, is excellence in doing things in order to achieve the highest purpose
of man through the function of reason and moral action. But to Aristotle, achieving or attainment of that
excellence is not “overnight” for to quote him, “For one swallow does not make a summer , nor does
one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy…”. This means
that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act.

A thought-provoking question arises as to “what exactly makes a man excellent?” Aristotle says that
excellence is an activity of the human soul and therefore, man needs to understand the very structure of
his human soul which is divided into two parts: 1.) the irrational element and 2.) the rational faculty. The
irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect
functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a person and is irrational in
the sense that it cannot be dictated by reason for it is in the nature of man to physically develop and
grow. The appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man that is processed through an impulse that
naturally runs counter to and refuses to go along with reason. Sexual urges and gluttony are examples of
this part of activity the human soul that is irrational. Unlike the vegetative aspect however, the desiring
faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Example; marriage first before sex. The rational element on
the other hand makes a man excellent because the rational faculty of reason dominates his activity and
thinking process. This faculty is also divided into two categories: 1.) moral, the act of doing and 2.)
intellectual, the act of knowing. The moral part of the human soul causes man to habitually choose good
and consistently do good deeds. Thus, the constant act of choosing and doing good forms in him a
character that defines his total being. The intellectual part of the human soul is attained through
teaching. One gains and learns wisdom through experience and knowledge by learning. It is famously
exemplified by an old saying “experience is the best teacher.” There are two ways of by which man can
attain intellectual excellence and these are philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with
attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe and the
general meaning of life (ex: questions about the WHY ) while practical wisdom is an excellence in
knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular act (ex: questions about the HOW ). Aristotle
suggests that although the rational functions of a person (moral and intellectual) are distinct from each
other, it is necessary for humans to attain the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to
accomplish a morally virtuous act. That practical wisdom of knowing the HOW must first be learned by
man before he finally understands the reasons for the WHY. For Aristotle, man is not initially good by
nature thus to attain moral goodness, he must constantly choose and do good deeds. By so doing, it
becomes a habit for him. Therefore, moral virtue is acquired through habit as the same is a repeated
process of getting used to doing the proper acts. This is clearly exemplified by the saying “practice makes
perfect.” The results of these repeated acts or deeds eventually forms in man his CHARACTER, a quality
that defines his person and total being.

Aristotle’s distinction of knowing the good from determining and acting what is good draws a sharp
contrast with Socrates’s view that knowledge already contains the ability of choice or action. For
Socrates, moral goodness is already in the realm of intellectual excellence and that knowing good
implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. In short, philosophic and practical wisdom are just
one and the same.

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

Mesotes, is defined as the mean (middle) between two extremes. Explained within the context of the
virtue ethics of Aristotle, there is mesotes when a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving
his appropriate action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the
middle or the intermediary point in between extremes the reason why a morally virtuous person
practices mesotes as a process of counterbalancing moral excesses and or deficiencies that comes out in
his personality depending on circumstances and situations. Man has to function in a state that his
personality manifests the right amount of feelings, passions and ability for a particular act. Generally,
feelings and passions are neutral which means that in themselves, they are neither morally right nor
wrong. But their rightness or wrongness lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. One
can be angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger depends accordingly with the nature of
the person he is angry with. The aid of reason dictates how humans should show different anger toward
a child and an adult.
Aristotle further explained that not all feelings, passions and actions have a middle point. When a mean
is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify the good act in a given situation. But, when what is
involved is seen as a bad feeling, passion or action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good
(mesotes) in something that is already considered a bad act. Aristotle provided some virtues with their
excesses and deficiencies. Below is a table that shows examples of these virtues with their
corresponding vices;

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

Recklessness Courage Cowardice

Prodigality Liberality Meanness