To better understand Kantian ethics (a philosophy also known as deontology,) we are offered this week articles that summarize and critique Kant’s ideals that seemed completely upright at first glance. In the article “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics,” Onora O’Neill tries to clarify Kant’s complex moral theory which has been dubbed before as “forbiddingly difficult” (411) to understand. To recapitulate briefly the main points of the article: O’Neill only tackles one part of Kant’s theory in her article, the Formula of the End-of-Itself. This principle mandates that one ought to act in such a way that one always treats other human beings never simply as means but always as an end of an action. This means that one should not involve another human being in an action to which they could not consent. For example, it is forbidden to lie to another person to persuade him or her into helping you, as then you are obscuring your intentions from the other person, and that is completely prohibited in deontology. To put it succinctly, if an action does not respect the goals of another human being, then it is forbidden to act in that way. Kant also believed that any action that a person performs is a reflection of one or more of his or her maxims. A maxim is a principle on a person acts. The words “maxim” and “intention” are used interchangeably when talking about deontology. Though there are many actions that a person can take, they only have a few duties in life. Some duties are more important than others, and duties of justice are the duties most valued by Kant. These include not lying, breaking promises, or murdering, and are also known as perfect duties, as they are never to be broken.
Overall, deontology seems like a more precise and better philosophy than utilitarianism. Like I mentioned earlier, deontologists never deceive, lie, or make false promises to others, which can happen in utilitarianism. Furthermore, the maltreatment or enslavement of other human beings could never occur in a deontological world, whereas it could in a utilitarian world, so long as it was the optimific solution to a problem. Though O’Neill neatly lays out some of Kant’s ideals in her article, I still have a few questions that have been left unanswered from her text. For example, what happens if a living patient needs an organ, say a liver, from a dead person? Perhaps the dead never gave consent, but using his or her kidney would mean saving the other’s life. Surely a doctor would be using the dead person as a means of accomplishing a task, but shouldn’t he if it means saving the life of another? And wouldn’t that be breaking a duty of justice, if the doctor let a patient die but had the means of saving him or her? Or would a pure deontologist refuse to save the life, as the doctor would be involving another in an action to which they could not consent? It seems to me that Kantian ethics have a more restricted scope than utilitarianism does, and as I read more about deontology, I can detect some weaknesses in the philosophy.
Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael, “Deontological Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
“Deontological ethics.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. .
“Kantian Ethics.” Sacramento State University. Sacramento State University, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. .