MODULE 6

Deontology as an Ethical Framework:

Immanuel Kant and the Theory of Rights
Module 6 focuses on the Deontological ethical framework in making moral decisions. It is
aimed at understanding Kantian ethical theory and its relevance to the present world. It uses
Kantian ethics in evaluating and making sound decisions concerning moral dilemma. The
module also looks into the concept of duty in the theory of legalism.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 6, you should be able to:
1. identify the strengths and weaknesses of deontology as a moral framework;
2. differentiate hypothetical imperatives from that of the categorical imperative;
3. explain the role of duty as the basis of good;
4. formulate maxims that can become moral law;
5. cite instances where someone else’s maxim cannot rationally become a moral law;
6. identify the different kinds of Rights; and
7. articulate the importance of sound decision-making in moral dilemmas.

ENGAGE

Which do you think should be given more weight when making moral decisions:
• the consequences of the action, or
• the intention of the person doing the act?
Reflect, declare your answer, and say why you think that is.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 1
 EXPLORE

For additional knowledge on Kantian ethics, explore the following videos:

Short doodle presentation of Kant’s ethics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhiRLuSlIU
Short discussion of Kant and Categorical Imperatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw
Comparison between Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg3mzfuCks

EXPLAIN

 6. DEONTOLOGY
Deontology comes from the Greek word “deon,” which means ‘duty’ or responsibility.
Rather than basing the morality of actions on consequences, deontological theories assert
that the morality of an action depends on its intrinsic nature, its motives, or its rules and
principles.
Duty-based theories emphasis the specific, foundational principles of obligation. To
reiterate, these theories are called deontological since the basis is on “duty”, and thus, on
the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called non-
consequentialist since these principles are deemed to be obligatory, irrespective of the
consequences that might follow from our actions. A brief example that may be given is: it is
wrong to not care and financially support our children
even if doing so results in some potential benefit, such
as financial savings. There are also other examples,
and furthering our investigation into deontology
would help us understand the merits and demerits of
the theory.

6.1. IMMANUEL KANT

An example of a deontological ethics is
Kantian ethics, which gives more preference on the
performance of duty and the intention of the act
rather than its consequences.
In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals,” Kant propounds that a person who fruitfully
resists the temptation of desire has willpower while the
individual who gives in and acts to satisfy the desire
does not have willpower. *(Willpower means a

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 2
 combination of determination and self-discipline that The will means the part of the
enables somebody to do something despite the mind which one consciously
difficulties involved). decides with. The will is very
relevant in the decision-making
6.1.1. The Will process of the person, since it
This concept of willpower brings to mind the following ratifies the determination to do
model of human action: The agent begins with a group something, or it strengthens the
of beliefs and desires that may be considered as desire/ inclination to enact
motives or reasons to act. Motives are likened to forces
that compel a person to act. The agent, however, must (or at least should) evaluate the
beliefs or desires tied to motives in order to determine whether these beliefs or desires should
or should not be satisfied through action. Thus, the agent’s reason acts as the
‘evaluator’. Additionally, while reason already acts as the evaluator, it also plays the part of
a ‘governor’. Here, reason is ultimately the thing that determines the will, which in turn
determines action.
Before a particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the willingness to attempt
to satisfy the desire must first exist. The agent’s preliminary choice is thus one which settles
whether to act or not to act on the desire. After this is made, then can the person see the
act through. Hence, we could imagine human actions schematically, in the following
manner:
Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to
satisfy desire (decision) → Action to satisfy desire

In the event that reason does not act as the evaluator, the schema becomes
something like this:

Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire

(decision) → Action to satisfy desire

Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires or beliefs often conflict. There are
instances when acting to satisfy one desire will exclude other desires, such that these other
desires already become impossible to attain due to the satisfaction of an earlier desire.
Let us say, for example, that you have the desire to go out with friends this coming
Saturday, with dancing, partying, and being out very late on the agenda. Satisfying this
desire would mean sacrificing other desires you might have, such as going to bed early (and
maximizing the benefits of a full night’s rest), or being able to work on a house-related project
you barely have time on, but which would be important for the safety of your family during
typhoons and heavy rains. As a second example, you find yourself having to choose
between leisure and study. On the one hand, you have the aching desire to play video
games, or to meet someone you have been interacting with online. On the other hand,
however, you also have the desire to pore over materials related to Immanuel Kant’s
theories, on the assumption that you might fail in the quiz if you fail to read the materials.
Such instances of conflicting desires necessitate choosing one and sacrificing another.
As rational individuals, it is expected that we have to let our reason decide between
conflicting desires. Sometimes, however, as individuals with organic or earthly bodies, and

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 3
 also with organic or earthly desires and needs, we at times find ourselves consumed with
satisfying our base desires. This previous statement, with its suggestion reminiscent of our oft-
spoken Filipino dictum, “pagkat ako ay tao lamang”, must not become the excuse we shall
cling to as justification for failing to utilize our reason well. This is why the ancients urge
repeatedly that people should learn to master their desires. This is the “the mark of virtue”
that Aristotle speaks of.
Relevantly, according to Immanuel Kant, if we are rational, then our will must not be
the slave of our desires. No particular action will be done until the will has been
activated. Hence, the person’s will is considered to be the an invaluable part of the actions
s/he enacts. Moreover, the will cooperates with reason in order to master (and temper)
whatever desires the person has.
To note, the only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good
will. A good will alone is good in all circumstances and in the sense of an absolute
good or an unconditioned good. The goodness of a good will is not derived from
the goodness of its results. A good will continues to have its own unique goodness
even where, by some misfortune, it is unable to produce the results at which it aims.
As Kant would say in the Groundwork, “it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake
as something which has its full value in itself”.
In going further with his discussion on the good will, Kant also tried to discuss
the function of reason. According to him, reason has been imparted to us as a
practical power ─ that is, as one which is to have influence on the will. The true
function of reason must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some
further end, but in itself. For Kant, reason has two main functions, the first of which
has to be subordinated to the second. The first function is to secure the individual’s
own happiness (a conditioned good), while the second is to manifest a will that is
good in itself.
Kant’s view enable a relevant question to arise: If one thing that is good
without qualifications is a good will, then what makes the will good and, conversely,
what makes it bad?
To answer this, the following qualification must be made. Kant was a supporter
of what we have called commonsense morality. He thought that the moral views
common to most people are pretty much correct. Therefore, he would think that a
person with a good will would not commit major moral offenses such as murder or
robbery. The same person would also not commit minor moral offenses such as
maliciously gossiping about people. Further, the person would generally help those
in need.
Kant took note of these things. But he also recognized that a person might
have a good will and not to be able to actually do any of the things a good person
would commonly do. This same person with a good will may also not be able to
refrain from doing actions which are questionable by way of commonsense morality.
Conversely, it would be noted that someone might do all the things that a good
person would do; and the same person might be able to refrain from doing actions
which are detestable by common standards, and yet, this person cannot make a
valid claim to good will.
For instance, someone may contribute to charity only because it is in his best
interests. Perhaps this person is an aspiring politician, who believes that he will gain
votes by (publicly) contributing to charity. Obviously, the act of contributing money
does not guarantee that a person has a good will. What about performing actions

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 4
 that would normally be considered as an indication that someone lacks a good will?
Suppose someone acts in a way that is deeply offensive or insulting to someone else.
Would that necessarily and absolutely mean that he or she lacks a good will?
Probably, but also problably not, especially if he or she did not intend to be offensive
or insulting. (*Note that these areas/instances are always more complex, and one
must treat and judge them as individual cases needind individual attention, rather
than as cases that can be decided with general pronouncements).
Kant points out that we cannot tell whether someone has a good will by
looking only at what that person does or does not do, or only at the effects or
consequences of his actions. One’s intentions are the key to whether one has a good
will. It is what one wants to accomplish – what one wills – that counts. (*Remember
from previous discussions that, in distinction to this emphasis on the intention and will
of the person, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham proposes it is the
consequence/s of the act that counts). A person has a good will if he or she tries to
do what is right and tries to avoid doing what is wrong. And the ‘trying’ must be
genuine attempts at rallying one’s capacities to do good and to avoid evil.
If, at this point, you are asking what or which actions could be considered
good and which would be deemed as wrong or evil, the next sections on Kant’s
views regarding duty might be instructive.

6.1.2. Duty
Kant says that the concept of duty contains the concept of a good will but it would
probably be more accurate to say that the concept of a good will entails the
concept of duty (a duty is an obligation of behavior or conduct in relation to others
or even to God which has a stronger claim on a person than his or her self-interest.
One has a good will if one tries to do one’s duty. But Kant emphasized that for a will
to be truly good, it must try to do its duty from purely moral motive, rather than from
a self-interested motive. The purely moral motive is the desire to do one’s duty out of
respect for the moral law. A person with a good will respects the moral law and tries
to act dutifully because he or she desires to act in ways that conform to what his or
her duties are.
In introducing the concept of duty, Kant came up with 3 propositions about
morality rooted on duty:

(1) A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate
inclination ─ still less because it is done from self-interest ─ but because it is done
for the sake of duty (Consider the implications of this situation: what if, for example,
in this particular waiting area at around 7PM in the evening, I saw you desperately
in need of medical attention? But the problem is that I am not disposed to help at
this time? This is because I am waiting for a business deal at 7:05PM, and the deal
involves 4 million pesos as my commission?);

(2) An action done from duty has moral worth, not from the results it attains or
seeks to attain, but from a formal principle or maxim─the principle of doing one’s
duty whatever that duty may be (This simply re-states the first proposition in a more

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 5
 technical way. We have already seen that a good will cannot derive its
unconditioned goodness from the conditioned goodness of the results at which it
aims, and this is true also of the morally good actions in which a good will acting for
the sake of duty is manifested.);

(3) Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law (What is this law?
This law speaks of a law which is valid for all rational beings as such, independently
of their particular desires. This law is better understood with the Categorical
Imperative of Kant as a test to help us evaluate whether or not a ‘proposed maxim’
can become a universal law.).

6.1.3. Actions and Maxims

Kant believed that people act for a reason (whether or not they are immediately
conscious of this reason, or even with or without engaging in the deliberation process
before doing an action). For example, suppose that Marc and Andrew each
contributed PHP 100,000 to charity. Following Kant, each of them has a reason for his
action. Let’s assume that we know their reasons. Marc approves of the goals of the
charity and wants to help in accomplishing its goals. Andrew, meanwhile, knows that
the names of large contributors will be publicized, and he wants to impress his
business associates and customers, thinking this action will improve his business. In
both cases, they have their reasons for contributing to the charity.
Kant believes that when people act for a reason, they are following a “maxim”
– a kind of personal rule of action. Of course, people do not always consciously
formulate these maxims and then deliberately follow them. Rather, people often act
as though they formulate and follow maxims. Kant assumes that we can discover
what maxim we will follow, even if we did not consciously formulate and follow it.
Given Marc and Andrew's reasons for contributing to charity, we might express the
maxims they were following as M1 (Marc’s Maxim) and M2 (Adrew’s maxim.)

M1. I will contribute to charity when I approve of the charity’s goal, and I want
to help it achieve its purpose.
M2. I will contribute to charity when I think that doing so will help improve my
business, and I want to improve my business.

A maxim takes the form “I will do action X in circumstances C for purpose P.” It
is a personal principle of action, a kind of prescription of how a person will act in
certain circumstances to achieve what he or she wants. Thus, a maxim must specify:
(1) what I will do, (2) the concrete circumstances in which I will do it, and (3) why I
will do it.
According to Kant, an action done from duty has moral worth based only on
the maxim that the agent follows, which specifies the action, the circumstances and
the motive. But surely an action cannot have moral worth if the agent is following a
bad maxim, such as “I will kill people whenever it is advantageous to me.”
Presumably an action has moral worth if and only if the maxim being followed is a
morally acceptable maxim. But what makes a maxim morally acceptable or morally
unacceptable?

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 6
 Before turning to this question, however, let us reflect a bit more on the maxims
and behaviors of both Marc and Andrew. Did Marc or Andrew do anything wrong
by contributing to charity? If they were following morally unacceptable maxims, then
they were doing something wrong, but if they were following morally acceptable
maxims, they were not doing anything wrong. Whether they did anything wrong, it
all depends on whether their maxims are morally acceptable. Surely, neither did
anything wrong. However, Kantian ethics would say that Andrew’s action lacked
moral worth because the maxim he followed was purely self-interested. (Lacking
moral worth, the action does not merit praise. Note, however, that it does not follow
that just because the action lacks moral worth, it already merits condemnation.
We face the task of distinguishing between morally acceptable and morally
unacceptable maxims. Whether we are talking about the moral worth of actions or
the rightness and wrongness of actions, we need to distinguish between maxims. We,
therefore, require a test of maxims.
Kant believes that we do not need to invent a totally new test to determine
the rightness and wrongness of maxims. He believes that there is a test that most
ordinary people apply and that has been endorsed by most of the world’s major
religions, including Christianity. This test is the so-called Golden Rule: Treat people
the way you want to be treated. However, he asserted that the Golden Rule needed
to be made more precise in order to be applied correctly. He called his reformulation
of the Golden Rule the “Categorical Imperative”. It is an “imperative” because it
takes the form of a rule. It is “categorical” because it applies to all circumstances,
regardless of an agent’s desires. Furthermore, its binds all persons/agents/actors
under the mantle of reason: humans are rational beings.

6.1.4. The Five (5) Formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

(1) The Formula of Universality or the Principle of Universal Law
"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law."

(2) The Formula of the Law of Nature

"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a universal law of
nature without contradiction."

(3) The Respect for People Formulation or The Principle of an End in Itself
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end."

(4) The Formula on Autonomy or The Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will as Rational
Agents)
"So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its
maxim."

(5) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

"So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends."

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 7
 Important questions:

• Can your maxim be universalized without contradiction?

• Can your maxim show respect to yourself as a person and to other persons as well?

If your answer is NO, then your maxim cannot become a moral law.
In the application of the rule on contradiction, you have to consider if, in the process, your
happiness or your own survival or existence or humanity's survival would be at stake
or compromised. At this point, it is important to point out that for Immanuel
Kant, committing suicide to escape the challenges and sufferings of life is not morally
acceptable because this maxim can never be universalized without contradiction. This is
aside from the fact that committing suicide does not also show respect to oneself as a
person, since the self is sacrificed to achieve an end, which is to run away from life’s
challenges and sufferings.
Take note that in the kingdom or in the World of Ends, one either has a price, or a
dignity (or intrinsic value, unconditioned value). If it has a price, then something else can be
put in its place as equivalent. But if it is exalted above all prices and so admits no equivalents,
then it has a dignity.
To note, autonomy or freedom is the ground or the cornerstone of the dignity of
human nature and of every rational nature. Dignity must be viewed as the result of people
who are free and autonomous. Thus, moral and rational agents are bound to mutually
respect each other.

Note: The discussion on Kant’s ethics is taken and/or copied from attorney’s blog,
Mark Gil J. Ramolete, (August 17, 2013). “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,” Law and
Philosophy. Accessed from
https://law-and-philosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/groundwork-of-metaphysic-of-
morals.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR147f5LzGM8KAjEhE8BE2BCP14_RbOyurXZI9pELejDcuTyJAPITtlaxYg

6.2. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RIGHTS

Rights Theory is a duty-based approach to ethics. Generally, a “right” is a justified claim
against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights and
duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of another
person. For example, if I have a right to payment of P10 by Pedro, then Pedro has a duty to
pay me P10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties.
The most influential early account of the rights theory is that of 17th century British
philosopher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not
harm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given
to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by
Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Jefferson and other rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 8
 specific rights from these, including the rights to property, movement, speech, and religious
expression.
There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural
insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal
insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that
rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are
inalienable, which means that “I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by
selling myself into slavery.”

6.2.1. Legal Rights

A Legal Right is a conditioned parameter of human actions. It is a mandate from law, and is
legislated by those who are in authority for the sake of the common good. Legal rights
emanate from the rightness of acts based on the legislated law. Obedience to the law is
obedience to reason as the basis of law; and as such, everyone is respected on that ability
to the follow the law. Legal rights are human rights that are derived from the moral law.
To be legal means to follow what the law prescribes. Thus, to know the law is
advantageous to all who are subjected to, and who obey the law. When we disobey what
the law prescribes, we are penalized based on the parameters that the law provides.

6.2.1.1. Rules of Human Conduct

Legal rights can also be observed through the use of the “Iron Rule”. This is distinguished from
both the “Silver Rule” and the “Golden Rule”.
“All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do
you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets”.
This saying has been given a metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” This
appellation has given rise to two other philosophical canons of human conduct, known as
the “silver rule” and the “iron rule”. Now, every rational individual, to a greater or lesser
degree, will adopt one of these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us
reflect upon how these schools of thought relate to human activity.

*Iron Rule
It uses force or intimidation in imposing rules of right or wrong. The Legalistic theory of morality
determines right from wrong, based on a body of clearly stated and well-documented body
of laws. Laws provide a standard of behaviours which every member of a particular state
must observe. These laws are imposed by the government to its citizens. The observances of
laws are ensured through police power and military force. The legalistic theory of morality
uses authority and force in imposing standards of right and wrong. This explains why it is
categorized under Authoritarian Ethics.
The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.”
As a comment, it is an egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess. Advocates
of the iron rule have been seen throughout history and examples are also given in the Holy
Book. Accounts of nations or governments doing violence in order to impose the rules and
the laws abound and can be referred to in this regard.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 9
 *The Silver Rule
The silver rule has sometimes been described as “the golden rule in a negative form.” It is the
golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.”
In this mode it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures. For
example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter
condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger
in himself. The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.”
Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds injury for
personal reasons. In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is a passage in which Tobias says to
his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man”. Confucius (551-479 B.C.), the famous
Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one
word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied:
“Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not do unto others” (Confucius, XV,
p. 24). The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis.
As a comment on the silver rule, the formulations forbid, but they enjoin nothing. The
silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s purse – because such is hateful to you.
On the other hand, however, if one finds an unmarked and unidentifiable purse containing
P2,000 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is apparently mute. This particular instance leaves
you with the option to take or not to take, but here, the option to take the purse appears
more inciting, since if you do not know to whom the purse really belongs to, leaving it would
mainly transfer the choice to another person, who might easily remark: “Finders keepers;
losers weepers”. (Note that the counterargument here is that the proper thing to do is to take
the purse and submit it to a proper lost and found, such that its owner can have it back.
However, that is precisely the comment against the silver rule: the formulations forbid, but
they enjoin nothing. There is no clear stipulation as to what must be done, only what must be
avoided).

6.2.2. Moral Rights

A Moral Right is an attribute to a system of beliefs that help the individual define right versus
wrong, good versus bad. These values typically get their authority from something outside
the individual, like a higher being or a higher authority. Moral concepts, judgments and
practices may vary from one society to another. For instance, the morality behind divorce
and same sex marriages differ between the Philippines and the United States. Morals also
change over time within a given society; as the society changes, so goes its morality.

*What is legal is not necessary moral.

A moral right is more than the legal right prescribed for a person to follow. Instead, it is what
humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or
specific virtues. For instance, in the Filipino culture, sons and daughters have the moral
obligation to take care of their parents, which may not necessarily oblige them legally to
bring their parents to the Home for the Aged. A student has the moral obligation to study his
lessons without necessarily being obliged legally to do it.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 10
 This statement, “a moral right is more than the legal right” explains why ethics refers
to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from acts like rape,
stealing, murder, assault, slander, fraud, and the like. Note that this are also given within legal
rights, but the difference is that it is possible for the laws to change. A conservative view of
ethics would say, for instance, that abortion is murder, and thus abortion is wrong. But certain
governing institutions stipulate that abortion is legal. So something legal is observed to not
be moral. This may also be the case for other observed moral-legal phenomena. At this point,
the oft-heard passage may be repeated, “what is legal is not necessarily moral, but what is
moral is necessarily worth legalizing.”
Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and
loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life,
the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate
standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

6.3. WILLIAM DAVID ROSS:

A more recent duty-based theory is given by the
British philosopher W. D. Ross. He emphasizes prima facie
duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross
argues that our duties are "part of the fundamental
nature of the universe." However, Ross' list of duties is
much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual
moral convictions:

a) Fidelity: the duty to keep promises;

b) Reparation: the duty to compensate others
when we harm them;
c) Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us;
d) Justice: the duty to recognize merit;
e) Beneficence: the duty to improve the
conditions of others;
f) Self-improvement: the duty to improve our
virtue and intelligence; and
g) Non-maleficence: the duty to not injure others

Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two
conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun (for a friendly,
wholesome game-hunting event) and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a
fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take
vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the
gun; on the other hand, the duty of non-maleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others
(or here, to not allow that to happen by the hands of others), and thus not return the gun.
According to Ross, “I will intuitively know which of these duties, is my actual duty, and which
is my apparent or prima facie duty”. In this case, my duty of non-maleficence emerges as
my actual duty so I should not return the gun.

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 11
 ELABORATE

Construct MAXIMs either about: issues on the Covid-19 pandemic; or,

issues about education.

Whichever you will choose:

(A) make ONE maxim that can become a Moral Law, and
(B) another ONE maxim that cannot rationally become a Moral Law.

Elaborate a little on both of the maxims you will provide, that is,
Why can (A) be a Moral Law?
Why can (B) not rationally become a Moral Law?

A. Maxim:______________________________________________________________________________

Elaboration: ✍

B. Maxim:______________________________________________________________________________

Elaboration: ✍

EVALUATE

Refer to the Google Form uploaded to the Google classroom for the graded activity of this
module. Answer the Google form quiz diligently. Do your Best!

Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 12