Deontology Study Questions Not For Turning In1 What Is The D

Deontology Study Questions Not For Turning In1 What Is The Differe

What is the difference between absolute duty and prima facie duty?

What is the difference between deontologists and utilitarians?

What are Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative, and give examples of what he means when he says not to treat individuals as only means?

Do you agree with Kant’s belief that it is the ability to reason that makes humans morally special?

What are the situations in which Sisela Bok argues that it is okay to lie? Under what circumstances would you argue that it is right to lie? Why?

What is the veil of ignorance that John Rawls argues can be used for determining conditions of impartiality and what are the two principles of justice that he argues will come from those conditions of impartiality?

Paper For Above instruction

Deontology, as an ethical theory, emphasizes the importance of duty and moral principles over the consequences of actions. It posits that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. This paper explores key concepts within deontological ethics, focusing on the distinction between absolute and prima facie duties, comparing deontology with utilitarianism, Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative, and related ethical considerations introduced by philosophers such as Sisela Bok and John Rawls.

The difference between absolute duty and prima facie duty forms a foundational aspect of deontological ethics. Absolute duty refers to a moral obligation that is universally binding and must always be adhered to, regardless of circumstances or consequences. For example, telling the truth is considered an absolute duty because dishonesty is inherently wrong, no matter the situation. In contrast, prima facie duties are moral obligations that hold until overridden by a more pressing duty. They serve as prima facie (at first glance) obligations that may be conflicted or weighed against each other. For instance, the duty to keep a promise might be overridden in a situation where breaking the promise could prevent greater harm, exemplifying the flexible nature of prima facie duties (Brown, 2020).

Deontology and utilitarianism stand as contrasting ethical frameworks. While deontology focuses on adherence to moral principles or duties, utilitarianism evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes, specifically the maximization of happiness or utility. Utilitarians argue that the moral rightness of an act derives from its consequences, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Conversely, deontologists like Kant assert that actions are morally right if they align with underlying duties and principles, irrespective of the outcomes (Singer, 2011). This fundamental difference influences how moral dilemmas are addressed within each framework.

Kantian ethics introduces two key formulations of the categorical imperative. The first formulation states that one should act only according to maxims that could be universally applied—that is, principles that could be consistently willed as a universal law. The second formulation emphasizes treating individuals always as ends in themselves and never merely as means. For example, using someone solely as a tool for personal gain, such as deception for profit, violates this principle. Respecting others' autonomy and inherent dignity underscores Kant’s insistence on moral duties that uphold human worth (Kant, 1785/1993).

Regarding human moral uniqueness, Kant believed that it stems from the capacity for rational thought and autonomous moral judgment. This capacity allows humans to determine moral duties through reason, distinguishing them from other beings driven purely by instinct or desire. While some critique this view as overly rationalistic, many agree that rationality plays a critical role in moral agency. However, contemporary ethicists debate whether moral worth should solely depend on rational capacity or include other traits like empathy and compassion (O’Neill, 1989).

Sisela Bok discusses the ethics of truthfulness, delineating situations where lying might be justified. She argues that lying is permissible if it prevents harm or under circumstances where honesty would result in unjust harm. For instance, lying to protect someone's safety could be morally acceptable, especially if revealing the truth would endanger life or well-being. Conversely, lying for personal gain without moral justification is generally unethical. This nuanced view recognizes that moral duties may conflict and that context matters in ethical decision-making (Bok, 1978).

John Rawls’s concept of the veil of ignorance serves as a thought experiment to establish impartial principles of justice. By imagining oneself behind a veil where personal characteristics and social positions are unknown, individuals are prompted to consider fair principles that benefit all. From this position of impartiality, Rawls derives two key principles: first, equal basic liberties for all, and second, the difference principle, which permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society (Rawls, 1971). These principles aim to create a just and equitable social order grounded in fairness and moral reason.

In conclusion, deontological ethics emphasizes the importance of moral duties, principles, and rational autonomy in ethical decision-making. Differentiating between absolute and prima facie duties highlights the flexibility inherent in moral obligations. Comparing deontology with utilitarianism underscores differing priorities—principles versus outcomes. Kant’s categorical imperative offers a rigorous framework for moral reasoning, centered on universalizability and respect for persons. Philosophers like Bok and Rawls extend these ideas into discussions of justice, truthfulness, and fairness, illustrating the richness and complexity of deontological thought in practical ethics.

References

• Bok, S. (1978). Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. Pantheon Books.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• O’Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant's Practical Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Brown, M. (2020). Understanding duty: Absolute and prima facie principles. Journal of Ethical Theory, 15(3), 45-59.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.