Deontological Ethical Systems

Variations and Misconceptions

Although the term derives from the Classical Greek words for duty (deon) and study or science (logos), deontology began to be used in the 20th century as a way to refer to moral theories that lacked the structure distinctive of consequentialism (and act consequentialism in particular). Consequentialist views begin with a conception of the ultimate nonmoral good, such as happiness for the utilitarian, and then define moral rightness instrumentally, as that which maximally produces or most effectively promotes the good. Deontological theories deny that rightness is dependent on goodness in this way. Some deontological theories are pluralistic in the sense that they posit a set of unrelated and nonderivative moral rules or precepts. The Ten Commandments and Ross's theory of prima facie duties take this form. Other deontological views are founded on a single overarching principle. The Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative are foundational principles of this sort. In virtue of their principle- or rule-oriented structure, deontological ethical systems are often considered to better reflect commonsense morality than consequentialist views. We seem to believe that lying, stealing, promise breaking, exploitation, discrimination, and the like, are wrong even when their results are desirable; even noble ends do not always justify the means.

In virtue of their nonconsequentialism, it is sometimes thought that for deontological ethical systems the consequences of actions are irrelevant. However, denying that rightness is a matter of bringing about optimal consequences does not entail that the consequences of [Page 564]actions are of no moral significance whatsoever, and few deontologists have embraced this strong and implausible position. Rawls, whose theory of justice is decidedly deontological, writes that any moral theory that refused to take consequences into account in judging rightness would be irrational. And among Ross's list of prima facie duties is the duty of beneficence, which requires that we promote others' well-being. What deontologists deny, rather, is that the consequences matter in the way they do on consequentialist views. Similarly, in denying that rightness is a matter of maximizing good results, deontologists need not hold that rightness and goodness are unrelated in all respects. Kant claims that goodwill is the sole unconditional good. But since having goodwill, in his view, is a matter of being firmly committed to doing the right thing, goodwill is neither a nonmoral good nor an effect actions ought to maximize.

...