Deontology Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Deontological ethics – evaluates morality of an action by whether it conforms to rules or duties, not by its outcomes. Duty vs. Consequence – the rightness of the act itself (duty) outweighs any results that follow. Kantian deontology – morality grounded in rational moral law; actions are right when done from duty and guided by the Categorical Imperative. Prima facie duties (Ross) – provisional duties (e.g., fidelity, beneficence) that may conflict; the absolute duty is the one that ultimately prevails. Divine Command Theory – an action is right iff God commands it; the source of moral law is divine, not rational. Threshold deontology – deontological rules hold until consequences become catastrophically harmful, at which point consequentialist reasoning kicks in. Deontic logic – formal system that uses symbols for obligation (O), permission (P), prohibition (F) to reason about duties. 📌 Must Remember Deontology ≠ Consequentialism; focus is rules, not results. Kant’s first formulation: Act only on maxims you can will as universal laws. Kant’s second formulation: Treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means. Good will is the only intrinsically good thing in Kantian ethics. Ross’s seven prima facie duties: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, non‑injury, beneficence, self‑improvement, justice. Divine Command Theory: “right ⇔ commanded by God.” Threshold deontology: switch to consequentialism only after a predefined harm threshold is crossed. 🔄 Key Processes Applying the Categorical Imperative (first formulation) Identify the maxim of your intended action. Ask: Can this maxim be willed as a universal law without contradiction? If no → action is impermissible. Resolving Rossian duty conflicts List all relevant prima facie duties in the situation. Weigh each duty’s relative moral weight (context, seriousness). The duty with the greatest weight becomes the absolute duty to act upon. Threshold deontology decision Evaluate consequences of following the rule. If projected harm exceeds the predetermined threshold, shift to consequentialist analysis; otherwise, follow the rule. 🔍 Key Comparisons Kantian deontology vs. Divine Command Theory Source of law: rational agents vs. God's will. Universality: rational law applies to all rational beings; divine command applies to those who accept that deity. Deontology vs. Consequentialism Focus: rule‑based duty vs. outcome‑based utility. Moral judgment: intrinsic rightness vs. net good produced. Rossian pluralism vs. Kantian monism Number of duties: multiple prima facie duties vs. single universal law. Conflict resolution: weigh duties vs. apply one categorical rule. ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Kant allows lying to save a life.” – Wrong; Kant holds any lie violates the universal law of truthfulness. “All deontologists reject consequences entirely.” – Incorrect; threshold deontology explicitly allows consequentialist overrides past a harm threshold. “Prima facie duties are absolute.” – They are provisional; only the absolute duty (determined by weighing) is binding in a specific case. “Divine Command Theory is just another form of Kantian deontology.” – No; the grounding principle (God’s will vs. rational law) differs fundamentally. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Universal Law Test” – Imagine a world where everyone acted the same way; if the world collapses logically, the action fails the test. “Duty Scale” – Visualize prima facie duties as weighted plates on a scale; the heavier plate (greater moral weight) tips the balance toward the absolute duty. “Threshold Switch” – Think of a traffic light: green (deontological rule) stays on until the “danger meter” (harm) turns red, then you must stop and consider outcomes. 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Lying to prevent immediate murder – Kant says still wrong; however, threshold deontology may permit breaking the truth rule if the harm threshold (e.g., saving a life) is surpassed. Conflicting prima facie duties – When duties are of equal weight, Ross suggests a reflective judgment considering contextual details (relationships, future ramifications). Divine command conflict with universal reason – Some philosophers argue that a command that contradicts rational moral law is incoherent; the outline does not resolve this but flags it as a distinction. 📍 When to Use Which Use Kant’s Categorical Imperative when the problem asks for a principle‑based judgment independent of outcomes (e.g., “Is it ever permissible to lie?”). Apply Ross’s prima facie duties when you face multiple competing obligations (e.g., promise‑keeping vs. preventing harm). Turn to Threshold deontology when a rule’s strict application would cause extreme foreseeable harm (e.g., disaster‑relief scenarios). Invoke Divine Command Theory only in contexts that explicitly reference theological authority or divine commandments. 👀 Patterns to Recognize Universalization pattern – exam questions often present a maxim; test whether it can be universalized without contradiction. Duty‑conflict pattern – look for two or more duties listed (promise, non‑injury, beneficence); expect a Rossian weighing exercise. Threshold trigger pattern – statements like “if the harm exceeds X” signal a switch to consequentialist reasoning. End‑vs‑means pattern – any scenario involving using a person as a tool cues Kant’s second formulation. 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Kant permits lying to save a life.” – Attractive because it aligns with intuition, but contradicts Kant’s absolute truthfulness rule. Distractor: “All deontological theories are identical.” – Wrong; the outline distinguishes Kantian, Rossian, Divine Command, and Threshold variants. Distractor: “Prima facie duties are never overridden.” – Misleads; the absolute duty can override weaker prima facie duties. Distractor: “Consequentialism is irrelevant to deontology.” – Incorrect; threshold deontology explicitly integrates consequentialist considerations. Distractor: “Divine Command Theory bases morality on human reason.” – Flips the source; it bases morality on God’s commands, not human rationality.