Chapter 4: FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR MORAL DISPOSITIONS

Module 9: Deontology (Kantian Ethics), Teleology(Utilitarianism) and

Justice as Fairness

Introduction

This module is concerned with developing your understanding of Deontology

(Kantian Ethics) and Teleology (Utilitarianism) in Ethics. It is hoped that the discussion,
description and explanation in this module will further help in your journey to the
understanding of ethics, especially Deontology (Kantian Ethics) and Teleology
(Utilitarianism) in Ethics which are important in helping you to become responsible moral
agent. Make use of this module to provide you with insights and ideas to help you
understand Deontology (Kantian Ethics) and Teleology (Utilitarianism) in Ethics.

Learning Objectives

With the completion of this self-learning module, you should be able to:

1. Demonstrate clear understanding of Kant and Right Theorists

2.
3. 2. Articulate what utilitarianism is and Explain the nature of moral judgements in
utilitarianism

Content

Preparatory Activities

Exercise

1. Cite a wrong act and evaluate why it is wrong?

2. Share your evaluation to the class.

Developmental Activities

Deontology - Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant is an avid defender of deontological theory. The German Enlightenment

philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is regarded as among the greatest and most influential of
Western philosophers, and undeniably as one of the most difficult to read and understand.
He contributed as many important brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics.

69
“Moral acts are either right or wrong on principle, and we have a duty to do good no matter
the circumstance.”

Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are based on feelings. For him, feelings
even serve as obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His ethi9cal theory
instead bases moral judgments on reason alone. Reason, for him is what deems an action
ethical or otherwise.

1. Good Will

Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we would
consult reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If it accords with reason,
we must do it, if not we must not do it.

Kant believes that one of the functions of and capacities of our reason is to produce a will
which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is the good
will which is the highest good and the condition of all other goods.

Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum or the
highest good. Happiness, for him can be corrupting and may be worthless or even
positively evil when not combined with a good will. In the same, intellectual eminence,
talents, character, self-control and fortune cannot be intrinsically good for they can be used
to bad ends.

A good will is one that habitually will wills rightly. And it is not what good will achieves that
constitutes its goodness. Even if good, because of some hindrances, accomplishes
nothing, it remains to be something with full value in itself. Good will is good itself.

But who is a good person or a person of good will? For Kant, it is the person who acts from
a sense of duty. Kant thinks that acting from a sense of duty means exhibiting good will
even in the face of difficulty.

For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that it be an act of a free agent. That it must be a
voluntary action, not a forced or compelled one. In addition, however, it must be an act
done not form inclination but form a sense of duty dictated by reason. Inclination refers to
the feeling that pushes us to select a particular option or make a particular decision. It is
our liking or tendency to do, favor, or want something. A duty or obligation on the other
hand is that which we ought to do despite our inclination or taste to do otherwise.

Normally, people perform the acts which please them or which they desire to do in
particular circumstances. For Kant, these actions determined by wishers, passions,
appetites, desires and the like have no moral worth. He believes that we act morally only
when we restrain our feelings and inclinations and do that which we obliged to do. Morality
as Kant sees, it is essentially connected with duties and obligations.

There is however a need to make a distinction between acts done from the motive of duty
and those are in accordance with duty. The former are moral acts unlike with the latter.
Respecting one’s parents for expediency or solely in obedience to custom, paying one’s
debt for fear of being sued, helping others because it’s pleasing to do so, taking care of
one’s children because one is so fond of doing so, displaying honesty to receive an award,
and keeping promise by accident are all examples of acts that are in accord with duty but
not from duty.

Moreover, acting morally entails acting from the motive of duty regardless of the

70
consequences that doing so or not doing so will bring. To perform an act for fear of
undesirable consequences of not doing it that is to act from a sense of prudence is only to
do a prudential act but not necessarily a moral one.

Therefore, it is only when we recognize that we ought to do an act because it is our duty,
understand the nature of this obligation, and act upon it that we are said to perform an
authentically moral act.

2. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

But we may ask Kant, “Can a person know what his duty is in a given situation?” “Is there a
test to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set of circumstances? Kant believes that
there is. First it is one’s duty, as a rational being to act on principle or maxim, as contrasted
to simply acting on impulse.

To distinguish actions on maxim from actions on impulse, let’s provide some illustrations.
Suppose a man wants to financially help a certain lady who is in need, merely because he
likes her personally, and he might not want to give the same assistance to another woman
in an exactly similar situation because he does not happen to like her. This is acting on
impulse and not done for a reason or on any principle or maxim.

Now contrast this with another man who give relief to total strangers who are victims of a
calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to provide support to those in need, he treats in
precisely the same manner any other person whose situation has the same characteristics.
This is acting on maxim. The agent has a reason for his action, and out of this reason, a
maxim like this is formulated. “This situation has such-and-such features, any situation
possessing these features must be dealt with in such-and-such manner”

Maxim, as we have seen, is a general rule or principle which serves as a guide to action.
“Be honest’, Don’t always shoot the ball when you get it”, “Don’t wear the wedding gown
before the wedding”, and “When in doubt render a salute” are examples of maxim.
Evidently, not all maxims are moral ones. In Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that are
moral, that is those dictated by reason and thus have imperative force.

There are two kinds of imperatives

Imperative should be understood as a command of reason.

Categorical imperatives specify actions we ought to take regardless of whether doing so

would enable us to get anything we want. It commands a person to act in particular ways
regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s ends may be. It is absolute but
unconditional. “An example of a categorical imperative might be “Keep your promises.”

Hypothetical imperatives identify actions we ought to take, but only if we have some
particular goal. Kant means that the commands depend upon the goals to be fulfilled. They
are contingent and derivative.

Now if hypothetical imperative states, “If you want to attain a certain end, act in such-and
such a way.” The categorical imperative on the other hand pronounces, “No matter what
end you desire to attain, act in such-and-such a way.” Clearly, it command a person to act
in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s ends may be.

Kant provides various formulations of the categorical imperatives, the universalizability and

71
end in itself formulations.

Formula of Universality and the Law of Nature

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law”

The Second Formulation: The Formula of Humanity

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”.

3. STRENGHT of Duty-Based Ethics

A strength is that a lot of our moral experience and practice takes the form of following
rules.
Duty-Based Ethics are concerned with what people do, not the consequences of their
action.
 Do the right thing.
 Do it because it is the right thing to do.
 Don’t do wrong things.
 Avoid them because they are wrong.
The strengths and weaknesses of Duty-based ethics
Strengths:
 Real of duty, free from utility.
 Respect for persons.
 Golden rule – do unto others, express in national terms.
 Reason based.
Weaknesses:
 Hyper-rationally and lack of emotions.
 The irrelevance of inclination.
 Overly formal and universal.
 Inflexibility.
 Supererogation.
1. It offers a paradox.
 In deontology, there are times when the maximum welfare of a society is forbidden.
You are tasked with saving lives, but one cannot purposely sacrifice a life to save
the other.
2. It can be applied in non-realistic situations.
 One form of deontology involves divine commands.
3. It is a matter of subjective opinion.
 The definition of right and wrong from a person’s deontological perspective
depends on the skills and insights of the individuals involved in the situation.
4. It eliminates the idea of self-defense.
 Deontological ethics dictate that all forms of violence are wrong.
5. It could take people at risk.
 Kant argument was that all ethics were absolute and because ethics are based on
the action, a better choice would be to do nothing.
 According to him, even lying to a murderer to save someone from becoming a

72
 victim was morally wrong.

4. Right Theory
In law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of rights. He saw a distinctive correlation, yet
difference between the intent of the law and the enforcement of law. For Kant,
governments were entrusted with the capacity to create laws by the citizens they governed
in exchange for protection. Thus, government have no right to disrupt that trust with cruel
intent against the freedom that citizens had been promised.
The principle of right theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious,
government must approach the making and enforcement of laws with the right intentions in
respect to the end goal of the society that it governs. Members of society agree to give up
some freedom for the protection enjoyed by organized society, but government cannot
infringe upon the rights that citizens have been promised.
When applied to war, right theory states that in order for a war to be deemed morally
justifiable, the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to human rights.
Kant’s principle of rights theory thus teaches that it is not merely the outcome of actions
that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because the intent is evil, then the
outcome is all likelihood, is bad as well.
Legal vs. Moral Rights
What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily legal in
a particular country. These principles prove among other things, that being moral and being
legal may practically related but not one and the same.
Some explain the difference between legal and moral to the difference between is and
ought. That is, moral rights refer to what ought to be, whereas legal rights are the rights
that are on the books. Moral rights represent the natural law while legal rights embody the
conventional positive law.
Legal rights denote all the rights found within existing legal codes. As such, they enjoy the
recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their existence can be resolved by
just locating the pertinent legal instrument or piece of legislation.
Moral rights in plain contrast are rights that exist prior to and independently from their
legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is not deemed to be
dependent upon the actions of jurists and legislators. For instance, many people argued
that the black majority in apartheid South Africa had a moral right to full political
participation in that country’s political system, although there existed no such legal right.
It must be clear, therefore that human right cannot be reduced to, or exclusively identified
with legal rights. In fact some human rights are best identified as moral rights. Human
rights are meant to apply to all human beings universally, regardless of whether or not they
have attained legal recognition by all countries everywhere.
Teleology -refers to moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their
outcomes or results. From the Greek word ‘telos’, which means ‘end,’ teleology takes into
account the end result of the action as the exclusive consideration of its morality.
(Aristotle’s ‘telos’ however has a related but somewhat different meaning.)

Teleology deems an action as morally right if its favourable consequences are greater
than its adverse outcomes. Its most famous form is consequentialism which proposes that
morality is determined solely by a cost-benefit evaluation of the action’s consequences.

73
Utilitarianism

CONSEQUENTIALIST ethics proposes that actions, rules, or policies should be ethically

measured and evaluated by their consequences, not by intention of motives of the agent.
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system judges the rightness of an act in terms of an
external goal or purpose. It is the most influential consequentialist theory. It comes from the
Latin term "utilis" which means "useful“. It states that what is useful is good, and that the
moral value of actions are determined by the utility of its consequences.

Utilitarian ethics argues that the right course of action is one that maximizes overall
happiness. It is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with pleasure.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism: the principle of utility is applied directly to every alternative act in a
situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best
results or at least amount of bad results. It focuses on what to do.

Rule Utilitarianism: is the principle of utility that is used to decide the validity of rules of
conduct. It focuses on how to do

Act vs. Rule

Act: I think it’s okay if it causes more happiness or prevents pain in some way
Rule: I think we should make rules that from our experience show increase happiness, and
follow those rules.

Origin and Nature of Theory:

It is founded by Jeremy Bentham but systematized and modified by John Stewart Mill.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Principle of Utility
 people act in their own interest
 nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically good
 gives no importance to the quality of pleasures
Quantitative Hedonist / Quantitative Utilitarian
Hedonic Calculus
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Certainty
4. Propinquity (remoteness)
5. Fecundity(fruitfulness)
6. Purity
7. Extent
As regards to Justice and Punishment Jeremy Bentham disapproves... "He who has done
harm shall endure harm" . It is evil for evil. "For Bentham, punishment- future harms"

Mill’s Utilitarianism: Greatest happiness principle

It states that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right
and wrong.
Mill differs fundamentally from Bentham on two central aspects.
1. Mill rejects the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of utility.
2. He introduces the so-called “secondary principle” which set the tone for a
contemporary variant of the theory called rule utilitarianism.

74
Mill’s First Point: Distinguished between higher and lower pleasures.
• Higher Pleasures means intellectual and Includes artistic, political and even spiritual
pleasures
• Lower pleasures are those which animals, too, can experience, such as those from
food, drink and sex. (Physical Pleasures)
Mill’s ‘secondary principles:
 He believes that past experiences teach us which kinds of action promote
happiness and which do not.
 It serves as practical rules, giving knowledge about the tendencies of actions when
no better information is available. This does not mean however that the actions are
justified by these practical rules --- it’s the consequences manifested in past
experiences which validate them.
An Analysis of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative reaction against Kantian ethics. Kant focuses
on motive while Bentham and Mill focuses on consequences.
Utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Pleasure and pain; Cause and effect reasoning- it
proves an action to be right or wrong by pointing to the observable evidences.; Perceptible
effect- it promotes actions that empirically improve life.
 Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if justified by the consequences.
Take the case of lying to protect another from sure danger. For Kant this wrong
while for Utilitarianism it is right.

We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And if we’re the ones who
happen to be there and we can something to make things better, we must; even if that
means getting our hands dirty.
Negative Criticisms
 It is not easy to foresee with certainty the consequences of actions.

75
 • Utilitarianism's principle
 That the total number of outcomes should be considered before an act can be
declared to be right or wrong is also problematic.
Mill's introduction of 'secondary principles‘- experiences-based 'practical rules
 By giving moral importance exclusively to the consequences of actions,
utilitarianism may also bring about complications. A student may be led to cheat in
his exams. "Does the end always justify the means?" Utilitarianism indicates that an
act is right even if it is due from an evil motive as long as it brings about
advantageous effects.
Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism
• " the greatest good for the the greatest number of persons"
• 'GOOD' defined as the net benefits that accrue to those parties affected by the
choice.
Types of Business Utilitarianism
1. Act Utilitarianism - choosing action produces more good than bad consequences.
2. Rule Utilitarianism - determined by the amount of good it brings about when
followed.
Justice as Fairness
"Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published
in 1985.[1] In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two main principles
of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into Fair Equality of Opportunity and the
Difference Principle.
Rawls arranges the principles in 'lexical priority', prioritizing in the order of the Liberty
Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. This order determines
the priorities of the principles if they conflict in practice. The principles are, however,
intended as a single, comprehensive conception of justice—'Justice as Fairness'—and not
to function individually. These principles are always applied so as to ensure that the "least
advantaged" are benefitted and not hurt or forgotten.

First principle: the liberty principle]

The first and most important principle states that every individual has an equal right to
basic liberties, Rawls claiming "that certain rights and freedoms are more important or
'basic' than others".[2] For example, Freeman argues, Rawls believes that "personal
property" – personal belongings, a home – constitutes a basic liberty, but an absolute right
to unlimited private property is not.[3] As basic liberties, these rights are inalienable: no
government can amend, infringe or remove such rights from individuals. [4] Thomas Mertens
says Rawls contends that principles for a society are just when chosen by representative
citizens placed within "fair" conditions.[5]
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls articulates the Liberty Principle as the most extensive basic
liberty compatible with similar liberty for others; he later amended this in Political
Liberalism, stating instead that "each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic rights and liberties".[6]

Second principle: the equality principle

The Equality Principle is the component of Justice as Fairness establishing distributive
justice. Rawls awards the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle lexical priority over the
Difference Principle: a society cannot arrange inequalities to maximize the share of the

76
least advantaged whilst not allowing access to certain offices or positions.
Fair equality of opportunity
This principle maintains that "offices and positions" [7] should be open to any individual,
regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity or sex. It is stronger than 'Formal
Equality of Opportunity' in that Rawls argues that an individual should not only have
the right to opportunities, but should have an effective equal chance as another of similar
natural ability.
Difference principle
The Difference Principle regulates inequalities: it only permits inequalities that work to the
advantage of the worst-off. This is often misinterpreted as trickle-down economics; Rawls'
argument is more accurately expressed as a system where wealth "diffuses up". [9] By
guaranteeing the worst-off in society a fair deal, Rawls compensates for naturally occurring
inequalities (talents that one is born with, such as a capacity for sport).
Rawls justifies the Difference Principle on the basis that, since Fair Equality of Opportunity
has lexical priority, the Just choice from Pareto optimal scenarios which could occur would
be that benefiting the worst-off rather than the best-off.

Original position
A key component of Rawls' argument is his claim that his Principles of Justice would be
chosen by parties in the original position.[10] This is a thought experiment in which the
parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in.
This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive participants of
information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender
and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces participants to select principles
impartially and rationally.

Closure Activities

1. Write in one sentence the important learning you got from this module.
2. Write in the space below one word that best describe what you feel right now
on finishing this module.
3. Write in one sentence what you think these learning can contribute in
developing your moral behaviour.

Synthesis/Generalization

Deontology is an ethical system that bases morality on independent moral rules or

duties. The term came from the Greek word deon which means ‘duty’, implying the
foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations. Kantian ethics is an example of
deontology where it believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action,
we would consult reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If it accords with
reason, we must do it, if not we must not do it.
Teleology refers to moral system that determines the moral value of actions by their
outcomes or results. Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system judges the rightness of
an act in terms of an external goal or purpose.

77
 The fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness. Justice is considered as a
virtue of social institutions (henceforth “practices”) and its function is essentially
distributive. . Justice is considered as only one of the many virtues of practices. Justice is
just one aspect of any conception of a good society.

Assignment

Write a reflective essay entitled: “My vies of Duterte’s administration if I were a utilitarian.

References:

Agapay, R. B.(1995, 2008) Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for Students
and Educators,
2ns ed. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.

Ardales, V. B.(1987) Introductory Text to Philosophy. Quezon City: Great Books

Trading, Inc.

Babor, E. R. (1999) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action, 1 st ed. Manila,

Philippines, Rex
Book Store.

Cruz, C. C. (1995) Contemporary Ethics. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc.

De Guzman J.M et al. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern

Society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, inc.

Dela Torre, J. (1993) Ethics: The man’s Tool for the Development of Sound
Professional and Civil Life. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc. `

Dy Jr., M B. (1986) Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings. Manila: Goodwill

Trading Co. Inc.

Glen, Paul J. (1965) Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, (reprint) Manila:
National Bookstore.
____________. (1994) Contemporary Social Philosophy. Manila: Goodwill Trading
Co. Inc.

Montemayor, F. M.(1994) Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. Manila, Philippines:

National Book Store

____________.(1995) Introduction to Philosophy Through the Philosophy of Man.

2nd ed. Manila: National Book Store, Inc.

Panizo, A., O.P. (1964) Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Manila: UST Textbook Series

Robles, G. S. (1994) Everyday Ethics. Manila: Educational Publishing House, Inc.

http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/

78