Lesson 3.

3: Immanuel Kant: Deontological Ethics

Lesson Summary

Kant’s philosophy is also known as Deontological Ethics “a theory that suggests actions are good
or bad according to a clear set of rules”. Its name comes from the Greek word “deon,” meaning
duty. Actions that follow these rules are ethical, while actions that do not, are not.” The moral life
is living with rules, doing the duties, and exercising the rationality of man. Through the Categorical
Imperative that you will realize that being ethical is not theoretical rather, there is always an
apparent imperative in the moral command (Kant, 2002).

Learning Outcomes

1. You will be able to understand and articulate Kant’s moral theory.

2. You will have the capacity to differentiate legal from a moral right.

Motivation Question

Have you been into a situation where you have to take full responsibility for your actions because
duty says so?

Discussion

There is an apparent contradiction of Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics to John

Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham’s idea that human nature as selfish and requires an objective
calculus for ethical action to result. Kant, however, proposed that man should act out of his
goodwill and not by the consequences of his actions. Goodwill is done by following one’s duty
and obligation. Duty and Obligation are actualized in Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law” (Schneewind 2010).
Apparently, the Categorical Imperative of Kant has three essential elements or sometimes
labeled as three kinds of the categorical imperative that you should remember.
First,“ Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” the universal or moral law that can be explained in a way that it
can be universal if each and everyone of us bows to follow the rule equally. Thus, the actions that
can be considered as right or wrong is are the same to each and everyone of us.
Second, “Act so that you treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of any
other human beings, never merely as a means, but always at the same time end.” You should treat
other human beings as ends, and not a means of any sort. In other words, you should take into
consideration the life of individual human beings as equally important to your life and should not
be used as a means. To have said this, apparently, respect for others is but a necessity so as not
to use others as a means (Kant, 2002).
Third, “Act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of
ends.” Since you are bound to treat human beings as an end themselves, then you should bring it
into the level of society. In this manner, everyone is treated as an end, and morality is not only
taken individually but as a foundation of society as a whole. This maxim fundamentally
establishes that our reasons can be universalized, thus the ultimate goal of Kant’s Categorical
Imperative (Kant, 2002).
Let us try to elucidate further the first element of the Categorical Imperative since it is a
strong foundation in Kant’s morality. Take into consideration this example: Supposing you steal
something from others and it is perfectly fine with you, it would faultlessly mean that you allow
stealing to be universal, and that includes you being the victim. The maxim concerning the
universalization of an act presupposes the idea that there is a colossal chance for such an act to
be accepted. However, in the deliberation process, the proposal is met with different oppositions
before it can be considered a law and eventually becomes a duty to follow.
Kant’s Deontological Ethics reiterated the idea of duty and obligation that, one should act
according to his duty and responsibility. In so doing, goodwill is attained in such a way that you
should act based on your duty patterned in reason. For example, you have a duty as a student to
submit your class requirements on time. Thus you are bound to follow this duty in turn will give
you the freedom to do other things in the future (Schneewind, 2010).

Legal and Moral Rights

The modern understanding or rights stems from the idea of the permissibility of actions.
Consequently, a deliberation is but necessary in choosing what kinds of rights should an
institution offer to its constituents. Thus, in the acceptance of giving rights presupposes the
recognition of the approval of the distribution of freedom and authority, in turn, there is an
unblemished endorsement of certain views of what are the right things to be done and wrong
things that should not be done (Zalta, 2016).
Trite as it may seem, but the proposition that states, “Not all legal are moral” you might
not be held responsible legally of such actions but morally you are guilty of doing such. First, we
have to define legal rights and moral rights. The former is defined as “rights which exist under the
rules of legal systems or by virtue of decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them” (Zalta,
2016). And the former is defined as a right that belongs to any moral entities who experience
freedom, rationality, and is sentient. The mentioned attributes basically predicated to human
beings. Thus, moral right pertains only to human beings (Gallenero, et al 2018). The fight for the
rights of a human being is twofold. First, you should consider your legal rights e.g. right to life,
right to vote, right to free speech, and so forth. Second, your moral right that is very encompassing
but sometimes experiencing an overlapped by the legal rights. In legal rights, you usually hear
that your rights stop when you step on somebody else’s rights. This is true, however, this is usually
realized in the legal parlance where proper court proceedings are done, e.g. in a lawsuit.
Consequently, when the moral rights, or let us say the fundamental rights you have, are being
stepped upon by somebody else’s legal rights, conflict ultimately arises. Let us take for example
the fundamental right to life -the moral right of an individual does not warrant to be upheld in a
self-defense situation where a perpetrator is killed because the victim defends oneself and fights
back the aggression. Although each individual possesses the moral right to life, in a legal context,
there is always the right to self-defense. Briefly, in protecting one’s life brings the possibility of
putting somebody else’s life in danger, and that is acceptable legally. The right to self-defense is
constitutional. In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Book 1 Chapter II Article. 11 states
that:
CHAPTER TWO
Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first
and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and
that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 1930).

Learning Tasks/Activities

1. List down 3 duties that you find difficult to accomplish as a student. For each duty, give
one or two ways on how you cope with the challenges.
1._________________________________________________________________

2._________________________________________________________________
3._________________________________________________________________