You can have a duty-based theory without being so strictly absolutist. Any time we carry out some duty or principle, more-or-less without regard to outcomes, we are adopting a broadly deontological approach. But capitalism doesn’t just stop there, it also instigates the universal laws for the global economy and dictates its deontological dogma through the IMF. Kofi Annan: Importance of Youth Leadership, Youth Leadership in Community Development, Taking Youth Leadership to the Next Level, How We Are Helping Chinese Disabled Youth, Front Loading Washing Machines Pros and Cons List, Flat Organisational Structure Pros and Cons List, 22 Good Songs for 18th Birthday Slideshow, 23 Bible Verses About Death Of a Grandmother, 42 Good Songs for 70th Birthday Slideshow, 19 Primary Pros and Cons of Legalizing Weed, 32 Good Songs for Moms Birthday Slideshow, 34 Good Songs for 40th Birthday Slideshow. Change ). I agree that there is nonetheless going to be some level of deontology–in any workable system, a government or public authority of some kind must reach a decision and issue a rule or a law to the respective interested parties. Deontology doesn’t have to be any more stubborn in its application as any other logical disciplline, and it isn’t deontological thinking that necessarily creates unbendable dogma, any more than nihilism and liberalism must necessarily create sound and humanitarian judgements. I submit to you that there is nothing else that can make a killing justified and that any deontologist who sees a distinction between murder and justified killing is not a deontologist, because this person judges the act of killing not by anything intrinsic to killing but by the consequences of the act in a specific context. We’re very concerned about consequences, but just the ones that are tethered to acts. Although rule consequentialism still has contingency at its core, and I believe that some acts are necessarily wrong rather than contingently wrong. The classical example of deontological ethics is the Kantian deontology and its categorical imperative. It does not look at the consequences of such actions or the characteristics and habits of the actor involved. Ethical Theory Of Deontology. The term deontology is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.”. They are comfortable and easy to believe in because they do not require critical thinking or scepticism. Deontology is a specific approach to ethics. I find it rather strange that your stated purpose is “to make the world a better place,” while you have such dogmatic and overtly institutionalized views regarding violence and death. I think it is possible to do things like environmental protection without relying so heavily upon deontological ethics. In answer to your assertion of the possibility of a less radical form of deontology, a deontologist who bends the definition of murder to exclude “justified” killing must now explain what makes a killing justified if it is not the consequences of that killing. Third formulation: we should treat others as autonomous and self-determining agents and thereby respect their autonomy and freedom. Rather than pitting the raw emotions of our destructive urge against our fears and compassions, deontology ask whether there is a rule guiding this situation that does (or does not) allow for murder. ( Log Out / Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Myself and most modern deontologists believe that murder (killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life) is always wrong. 2. Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/GoodnEvil/Readings/kantgw.pdf. It is a cornerstone of a moral philosophy enunciated by this great Prussian-German philosopher circa 300 years back. ( Log Out / The difference between the theories is this: the act consequentalist sees murder as wrong only if (and because) it has negative consequences, the rule consequentialist sees murder as wrong only if (and because) it violates a rule that when generally accepted leads to positive consequences, and the deontologist sees murder as wrong because it’s a heinous act that rejects our intrinsic value. Let’s examine something more banal and seemingly acceptable, such as the notion that murder is immoral. The agent in this situation clearly would not be charged with murder. What is the deontological ethical theory? This conflict leads to mistrust and misunderstanding between managers and clinicians. 1. That means situations are either good or bad based on the action that brought it about. That’s pretty wacked if you ask me. Today I’d like to discuss deontological ethics, the notion that an act or behaviour is right or wrong in and of itself, irrespective of the consequences of that act. Let us cast aside the intellectual idols that ensnare us in the circular logical of the deontologist. A consequentialist rather than deontological attitude toward environmental protection might be one of “if the conseqeunces of polluting in X way are negative, and potentially far more harmful than any positive gains, it is not reasonable or ethical to pollute in X way”. Do it because it's the right thing to … Killing someone, on the other hand, is morally right within a very specific context. In a democracy, voting is considered a right. But if it makes them attempt suicide or so angry that they go out and run someone over? Definition of murder: The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. I didn’t read through the comments, so this may have already been said, but, in case not, I’d like to point out that Kant’s deontological moral theory doesn’t appeal to the authority of a book or leader, but to the authority of reason itself.