LEYTE NORMAL UNIVERSITY

SAN ISIDRO EXTERNAL CAMPUS

San Isidro, Leyte
ETHICS

DEONTOLOGY

MODULE 4

Name: ______________ Score: ____________

Instructor: _____________________________ Date: _____________

Objectives:

Discuss the basic principles of deontology

Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience; and

Evaluate actions using the universalizability test.

I. Analysis

Reconcile these two topics: our discussion of autonomy and the duty to
“speaking truth to power.” Suppose you are already working for a company and
your boss tells you that you should offer a bribe to a government agent to obtain
permit to build and operate a factory in a province. What would you do? What
are your alternatives if you believe that it is wrong to bribe government
agencies?

Answer: For me that knows that’s bribery is against the Law, as an ethical
person in order to attain a permit without offering a bribe to a government agent
my alternative plan is to apply for a permit in due process. I will offer my boss
that the bribe that should be offered to a government agent to get a permit, I will
ask him that he gives me the money and the inclusive papers needed so that I
can get a permit in a ways that doesn’t irregulates the law.

II. Abstraction

It has become clear how Kant’s categorical imperative is a formal, not

substantive, moral philosophy. We have shown how an action can be tested and
via this test, it can also be distinguished whether such action is permissible or
not. Instead of being given a list of substantive moral commands, we now have
a sort of tool, like a measuring instrument, that tells us whether an action is
morally permissible or not. Hence, we have the capacity to make our own list of
moral commands. Instead of receiving them from others, we use our own
rational faculty to produce a list of moral duties.
I
Returning to Reggie and the suitcase that was left in the lab, he can now test on
his own the moral permissibility of the formulated maxim: “When a suitcase
that does not belong to me is left in the cab, I shall take its contents and sell
them for my own benefit.” He can now assess this maxim by imagining it as
everyone’s obligation. Does the universalized maxim encounter a self-
contradiction, or does it remain self-consistent? Certainly, the meaning of
ownership, when a suitcase belongs to someone, is to have the right to possess,
use, and dispose of the thing. So what happens when a person is obligated to
take possession of an object that does not belong to her? The universalized
maxim of Reggie is becomes contradictory, for the meaning of ownership is
contradicted. How is it that everyone is obligated to take a suitcase and sell its
contents, despite the fact that they do not have the right to possess, use or
dispose of that suitcase?

Now imagine applying this procedure to other scenarios in which a person

encounters moral problems, such as lying, cheating in an exam, murder,
adultery, among others. You may also test positive actions, such as paying for
something that you are buying, returning something you borrowed, or
submitting a school project on time. Can the maxim in the specific actions
under those moral issues be universalized without encountering self-
contradiction? It is for each of us to test on our own, not for Kant or any other
authority figure to determine for us. On our own, try identifying an action that
is considered lying or cheating in an exam, formulate maxim, then test that
maxim for universalizability. Is there a contradiction that is revealed in the
universalized maxim?

In summary, this procedure is properly used when on wishes to determine the

moral permissibility of an action. Indeed, we are often already told which
actions are right or wrong, but this knowledge is usually based on what
authority figures say. Our parents, priests, school rules and regulations, and
government ordinances already prescribe clearly determined moral commands.
So what is categorical imperative for, if we already know whether or not an
action is right?

The categorical imperative is precisely for the rational will that is autonomous.
Recall that autonomy implies a self-legislating will. The test for
universalizability makes possible that self-legislation, for the result of the
categorical imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to distinguish between
permissible and impermissible moral acts. Any rational will can then begin the
work of producing a list of duties, what a rational and autonomous will believes
to be right and wrong actions.

This is therefore the place of deontology in the spirit of enlightenment morality.

Deontology is based on the “light” of one’s own reason when maturity and
rational capacity take hold of a person’s decision-making. Reason is depicted as
having its own light in contrast to our long experience of “paternalism” in
human history, in which we find dictatorship and authority figure that claim be
benevolent, but have proven to be oppressive exploitive of those who do not
have political power. With deontology, particularly the method of
universalizability, we can validate and adopt those rules and laws that are right
and reject those that are irrational, thus impermissible because they are self-
contradictory.

DEONTOLOGY

AUTONOMY UNIVERSALIBILITY

This description of autonomy Act only according to such a

is maxim, by which you can at
Unusual. When we think of once will that it become a
someone being “subject to the universal law.
law”, we usually think of an
imposing authority figure that
uses his power to control the
subject into complying with Here I(Kant) see straightway
his will. The will must comply that it could never be valid as
with the law, which is the a universal law of nature and
authority figure. be consistent with itself, but
must necessarily contradict
The distinguishing point here itself. For the universality of a
is the locus of the authorship law that each person, when he
of the law. In any given believes himself to be in need,
scenario where a person could promise whatever he
complies with the law, we ask pleases with the intent not to
where the author is, whether it keep it, would make the
is external or internal. If the promise and the purpose that
author of the law is the he may have impossible, since
external, the will is subjected no one would believe what
to an external authority; thus was promised him but would
heteronomous will. In laugh at all such expressions
contrast, if the author was the as futile pretense.
will itself, imposing the law
unto itself, we describe the
 There is a difference between
what determines a choice or
decision, whether caused by
sensible impulses or by pure
reason. Kant calls this set of
actions that are caused by
sensible impulse animal
choice or arbitrium brutum.

There is a choice or actions

that is determined by pure
reason. Kant calls this kind of
action free choice, and one
may argue that human
freedom reside in this capacity
of reason to intervene.

b. Research Key Concepts:

i. Rational Will
 The will which is entirely devoted to, or guided by impartiality and
universality of action.
ii. Duty
 Something that you must do because it is morally right or because the
law requires it.
iii. Maxim
 A well-known phrase that expresses a general truth about life or a rule
about behavior.
iv. Universality
 Refers as concept of legal legitimacy actions, whereby those principles
and rules for governing human beings conduct which are most universal
in their acceptability, their applicability, translation, and philosophical
basis.

III. Application
Go online and look for items on whistle-blowers. Identify the crime or unethical
act they are exposing as well as the perpetrators of the crime. Detail your
findings and opinion below.

Answer: Whistle-blowers is a person, usually an employee, who exposes

information or activity within a private, public, or government organization that
is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds.
Those who become whistle blowers can choose to bring information or
allegations to surface either internally or externally. Over 80% of
whistleblowers report internally to a supervisor, human resources, compliance
or a neutral third party within the company will address and correct the issues.
Externally, a whistleblower can bring allegations to light by contacting a third
party outside of the organization such as media, government, or law
enforcement. Even though it is illegal in many countries, including the United
States, over 90% of whistleblowers report being retaliated against from those
who are accused or alleged of wrong doing, on behalf of the company. The
most common type of retaliation reported is being abruptly terminated.
However, there are several other activities that are considered retaliatory, such
as sudden extreme increase in workloads, having hour cuts drastically making
task completion impossible or otherwise bullying measures.

IV. Assessement

In recent events, A PMA Cadet was brutally killed by his co-cadets inside the
PMA vicinity. The co-students argued that their acts are valid because it was all
part of the initiation processes? Use Immanuel Kant’s Deontology in justifying
your answer? If you are one of the survivors of the deadly hazing activity will
you inform school officials regarding the matter?

Using Kant’s ethics, how will you defend the fact that abortion is illegal?

Answer:
Yes, there are certain rule in the PMA and all the applicants must know
about that there is hazing. Hazing is part of the traditional actions before taking
the training base on the Scout Ranger member itself that I have encountered.
So, hazing may be valid in this state but with limitations. Base on Kant’s
Deontology action itself is right wrong under a series of rules, rather than based
on the consequences of the action. Yes, I will inform the school officials
regarding the matter even though it is normal for a PMA applicant because they
are aware of it that there will be hazing but even though its already a practice
inside the PMA academy there should be limitation on conducting the hazing
that suits the capability on resisting the pain for the applicant.
Basing on Kant’s ethics, there is a written rule of the divine commandment
that “thou should not kill” even without basing the consequence of abortion, the
action is already horrible wrong. A life is given upon to live, not to end a
sprouting life on living. Abortion is wrong basing to Kant’s ethics, the natural
law and human law. So it is illegal and immoral.