Deontology
Deontology is the family of normative theories on which the rightness of acts is determined at least partly by conformity to moral duties, rules, or constraints, not solely by the goodness of consequences.
Definition
A normative theory is deontological if it holds that the deontic status of an act depends on features other than, or in addition to, the value of its consequences, such as whether it keeps a promise, respects a right, or violates a constraint against harming.
Scope
This area covers duty-based normative theories that hold some acts are forbidden or required independently of their consequences. It includes Kantian ethics, Ross's pluralistic prima facie duties, the structure of agent-relative constraints and options, and the doctrine of double effect. Consequentialist and virtue-based rivals are treated by contrast in neighbouring areas.
Sub-topics
Core questions
- Are there acts that are wrong even when performing them would produce the best outcome?
- What grounds moral duties, and how are conflicts among them resolved?
- Why may an agent be forbidden to do harm even to prevent more of the same harm?
- How do intention and the agent's perspective bear on permissibility?
Key theories
- Kantian deontology
- Kant's view that morality is grounded in the categorical imperative, which requires acting only on maxims one can will as universal law and treating humanity always as an end and never merely as a means.
- Pluralistic prima facie duties
- Ross's intuitionist account positing several irreducible prima facie duties, such as fidelity, non-maleficence, and gratitude, whose weights must be balanced in particular situations.
History
Modern deontology is shaped above all by Kant (1785), who derived moral requirements from the rational structure of the will. In the twentieth century Ross (1930) developed a pluralistic, intuitionist deontology of prima facie duties, while Nagel (1986) analysed the agent-relative reasons and constraints that distinguish deontology from consequentialism, and Kamm and others refined the theory of permissible and impermissible harming.
Debates
- The paradox of deontology
- It seems puzzling that a constraint against, say, killing should forbid one killing even when doing so would prevent several killings; critics ask how minimizing violations can be impermissible.
- Absolutism vs. threshold deontology
- Whether deontological constraints are absolute or may be overridden once the stakes pass a catastrophic threshold remains contested, with threshold views accused of instability.
Key figures
- Immanuel Kant
- W. D. Ross
- Thomas Nagel
- Frances Kamm
- Christine Korsgaard
Related topics
Seminal works
- kant1785
- ross1930
- nagel1986
Frequently asked questions
- How does deontology differ from consequentialism?
- Deontology holds that some acts are required or forbidden in virtue of their kind, regardless of outcomes, whereas consequentialism makes rightness depend entirely on the goodness of consequences.
- Are deontological rules always absolute?
- Not necessarily. Some deontologists treat constraints as absolute, while threshold deontologists allow that constraints may be overridden when the consequences of obeying them would be catastrophic.