Immanuel kant was one of eighteenth century’s greatest moral philosophers. Kantian deontology, named after Kant, is his moral theory. Burnor Raley and others have said that Kantian Deontology is his most influential moral theory. Although it has many positive aspects, it isn’t perfect. Kant’s moral theories has two appealing qualities: It aims at true (and mathematical) universality. As we have already stated, Kantian deontology isn’t perfect. Kant doesn’t take into consideration the consequences of morals or the “rational-agent objection”.
Kantian deontology considers universality in morals to be one of the top ‘attractive characteristics’. Burnor Raley explains that the maxim is a “rule of behavior” or “conduct” which one can adhere to. Kant’s strategy is that when it comes to universality, the morality of a particular act depends on its rationality. To demonstrate that a maxim can be universalized, it is best to use a simple concept. Can lying become universal? No, because lying is about deceiving someone. The purpose is defeated. According to Burnor and Raley, Kant’s universality in morals led him to conclude that “each individual has the exact same moral value, so each deserves the same level of respect”. It may remind you of the golden rules, but that is not what it means. Kant believes in universalizing maxims with a rational mind. This is different from the Golden Rule. Kant tries to demonstrate how moral principles are derived from rationality. Universality is attractive because it addresses the weakness of utilitarianism, which lacks universalism.
Kantian Deontology also has a strong emphasis on the principle of ends. The principle of endings is to act in a manner that treats everyone (including oneself) who will be affected by an action as if it were a final goal, never as mere means (Burnor Raley). The principle of ends should take into account the intrinsic value. If you are unfamiliar with Kant’s definitions for’means and ends’, it can be confusing. In this context, a’means’ is a common definition of a tool that can be used to achieve a goal. There is also a ‘goal’ that you want to achieve. According to the authors, “Kant’s principles of ends offer us a profound insight into morality” (Burnor Raley). Al’s dishonesty toward Mrs. Satzoner in the book was the best way to illustrate this concept. Al lies about the “tiptop” condition of the SUV that Mrs. Satzoner is interested in purchasing (Burnor Raley) to complete the sale. Al knows the entire history of the SUV, including all its issues, and is trying to hide a leaky transmission in order to save money. The principle says he’s morally wrong for treating her like a “means” instead of a person. The categorical mandate is another alternative that “doesn’t rely on any conditions and applies to all situations and people” (Burnor, Raley). It’s easy to understand.
I have already stated that despite its attractiveness, Kantian Deontology does not come without flaws. Burnor Raley argues that Kant does not take into consideration the consequences of his actions. What does this mean? Kant argues that consequences have no moral effect and one can’t control the course of future events (Burnor Raley). If we accepted this, “we can’t be morally held responsible for what ends up happening” (Burnor Raley). The book gave the example: If terrorists approached you and asked when the station would most likely be packed, what would your response be? You will always tell the truth if you follow the maxim that you should not lie. Kant’s idea that you can’t control the future could come into question here. The station where they intend to blow it up might be shut unexpectedly down at the time they intended to attack. But is it possible? Consequentialists claim that some choices we make do have an effect on others. For example, if you decide not to answer a terrorist’s question, it may lead to them not following through. Kantian deontology falls short here.
Kantian deontology has another flaw: “The Rational Agent Omission”. (Burnor Raley). Burnor Raley says that Kantian Ethics requires just and respectful treatments of persons (autonomous moral agents) and not infants or young children. These people are excluded, because they are unable to create their own moral laws. Kant claims that we have personal duties towards them even though they do not directly owe us anything. It means that you don’t have to do certain things for people who aren’t autonomous. You, a child, a teenager, and an Alzheimer’s patient would all be in a shared room if they needed help. However, the only person you have a responsibility to is the young adult. What a sham! The authors then suggest that “perhaps creatures with the ability to see the future (or those that had autonomy in past times) should have certain rights” (Burnor & Raley). Kant’s views on animal rights are not universally accepted.
Kantian deontology has many attractive qualities, which make it a popular theory. This theory is attractive because it tries to achieve universality. It also has the principle that ends is important (which basically looks at the intrinsic value). Kant’s theory of morality is not without flaws. Kant’s refusal to acknowledge or accept consequences, as well as his claim that we only should respect moral agents who act autonomously (the rational agency objection).
Author
