"Freedom of the press is the main guarantee for the freedom of expression, without which the protection of other fundamental civil rights could not be guaranteed. However, we must bear in mind that exercising these liberties includes duties and responsibilities.
The press has to have the right to compile and to publish, without restriction, information and commentaries to ensure the formation of public opinion." Ref.1
CETERIS PARIBUS,
excluding Virtue and Utilitarian Ethics!
(FURTHER CONSIDERATION)
DEONTOLOGY PREAMBLE
LESSON 1
Immanuel Kant
Kant’s ‘propositions of morality’ – To establish the propositions of morality Kant must first ask a series of questions.
Question: What makes a person morally good? Answer = Motive or Intentions.
Proposition: ‘To assess a person morally, we must look to his intentions.’
Deontology is an alternative moral theory though we should distinguish between strict determinism as espoused by Kant also known as Kantianism (though one can subscribe to deontology without agreeing with the specifics of Kant’s claims) and the moderate version espoused by WD Ross.
Strict deontologists argue that consequences are completely irrelevant to the ethical status of an action or rule. Though the moderate deontologists consider consequences to be somewhat relevant in general however all deontologists deny that there is a good (e.g. happiness) that must be maximised. Immanuel Kant.
The purpose of a moral theory is to provide a way of discovering whether certain actions or policies are ethically right, wrong, or permissible. Kant’s question: What makes a person morally good? = motive or intention.
LESSON 2
Immanuel Kant
-
Question 2. What sorts of intentions make one morally good?
-
Answer – It is not the intention of bringing about happiness that makes one morally good.
-
Proposition: Acting with a morally good intention (the possession of which makes a person morally good) is the same as acting from the motive of duty.
What makes a person good or bad should not be based on whether or not they achieve their goals. People will more often than not, want to do what pleases them but that in itself does not make an act ethical.
People derive happiness from unethical things as well.
Acting with the intention of being good is being dutiful to the moral law.
Acting from the motive of duty itself, and not from the misguided motive of bringing about happiness
LESSON 3
Immanuel Kant
-
Question 3. What does it mean for a person to intend to act from the motive of duty?
-
Answer: Acting from the motive of duty is acting out of respect for the moral law.
-
Proposition: The moral law is what morality itself (objective moral truth) requires of us.
Proposition: The moral law is what morality itself (objective moral truth) requires of us, and acting out of respect for the moral law means not allowing anything, not happiness, fear, love even a government law, get in the way of doing what is morally right. Being able to sacrifice happiness is what Kant means by the notion of respect in this 3rd proposition.
So a person is morally good (performs moral actions) if one acts from morally good intention, and an intention is morally good if the motive is duty itself, meaning respect for the law. But how are we to know which actions are morally right in the first place? Motive is central for Kant.
Consequences should not feature in moral reasoning. Inclinations should be ignored. Inclinations refers to intuitions, desires, emotions or any motivation other than respect for the law. For Kant inclinations can get in the way when determining the right ethical course of action. Kant focuses on rationality as the appropriate tool for ethical decision-making. We are still left to determine how an action or rule is ethically right, wrong or permissible. Duty, respect, we know but what is the moral law?
LESSON 4
Categorical Imperative (CI): “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
-
Ascertain the individual’s motive
-
Ascertain the individual’s maxim
-
Universalise the maxim
-
Assess that universalised maxim for consistency
Kant’s answer is the categorical imperative. The CI serves two purposes. It is firstly a command; it instructs us on what to do if we are to act ethically and as such it tells us what the moral law is. The CI secondly acts as a mechanism for testing actions or rules to see whether they are ethically right, wrong , or permissible.
The CI has a few formulations.
1) Motive: Mr Welch’s motive for beating Deletha “she made me angry, and beating her made me feel better”;
2) Maxim: ‘Whenever anyone angers me, I will beat that person so that I can feel better’;
3) Universalise the maxim: ‘Whenever anyone angers any person, that person who is angry will beat the person who caused the anger’;
4) Consistency – it has generated a contradiction and is therefore wrong.
Interpretations – ‘don’t be an exception to the rule’ and The Golden Rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
What is ethically permissible isn’t necessarily ethically right.
LESSON 5
Kingdom of Ends
Categorical Imperative: Persons as Ends
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
always as an end and never as a means only”
People have respect and dignity and all people are moral equals. So don’t treat a person as a means to your own end.
2nd Formulation: persons as ends – Kant is relying on a distinction here between means and ends. Never treat people as a means only is closely related to the difference between people and things. An inanimate object (thing) only has value in so far as someone values it – it does not have value in itself, meaning unless someone actually values it, it has no value. I can use things as I see fit in order to accomplish my goals. Using a computer as a means to a goal does not morally wrong it, even if I throw it out the window when frustrated by it.
People are different, they do not need to be valued by others in order to have value. Because they are rational beings, people have value in themselves irrespective of how they are viewed by others. People are not mere things but are ‘ends in themselves’ according to Kant. According to the 2nd formulation of the CI you may not treat people as a mere means. Do not treat people as a means to your own end. (You certainly cannot throw people out the window when you get frustrated with them). People have respect and dignity.
LESSON 6
Sir W.D. Ross Prima Facie Duties (different outlook)
“Prima Facie Duties”
Prima facie rules allow for exceptions
Though not exhaustive Ross lists 7 Prima Facie Duties:
1. Fidelity – Honesty and promise keeping.
2. Reparation – when we wrong someone we are morally obligated to do what we can to repair our wrong.
3. Gratitude
Ross’s theory allows that moral rules can have exceptions Ross refers to the duties in his theory as prima facie duties. Prima facie rules are rules that must usually be followed which have exceptions under extenuating circumstances such as when the duties conflict.
Ross is therefore committed to the idea that there are objective moral rules best stated in terms of duties we owe each other, but he is not committed to the idea that these duties must always be carried out.
One must in such instances of conflict between duties determine which duty is more stringent or of more ethical importance. We have to work out whether Ross’ theory provides an adequate basis for assessing how to weigh these duties against each other.
4. Distributive Justice
5. Beneficence
6. Self-improvement
7. Nonmaleficence
For an action to be ethical it must conform to the prima facie duties! Applying this version of deontology requires consulting the list of prima facie duties to determine which one applies to any given situation.
4) Distributive Justice is the obligation to prevent excessive distributions of hardship or happiness.
5) Beneficence requires that we take certain steps to improve the conditions of others (the improvement may relate to their well-being, their character, pleasure, etc.).
6) Duty of self-improvement.
7) Nonmaleficence requires us not to harm others. Ross points out that harm does not just refer to physical, or psychological but any sort of set back to one’s interest especially of one’s livelihood.
For an action to be ethical it must conform to the prima facie duties. When duties are in conflict the ethically right action in any given situation must be in accordance with the most stringent prima facie duty. E.g.: Doctor patient – doctor posts DNR – clash fidelity/beneficence (e.g. wrong medication). Lawyer/client – later learns client is guilty. Honesty to client/ duty of Honesty (both fidelity)? Professor / student appointment.
Criticisms of Ross
How do we decide which of the prima facie duties is most relevant?
Ross claims the duty of nonmaleficence will usually be the most stringent. But what happens when that is in conflict with other duties?
A moral theory is meant to help us see our way past intuitions which in some cases when trying to determine the most stringent will still require of us our intuition.
How do we decide which of the prima facie duties is most relevant? Remember a moral theory must be prescriptive, it must inform those who consult what the appropriate action should be.
Nonmaleficence, Ross claims, is the most stringent in many cases. Harming others is to be avoided in all but the most extreme cases, namely those in which nonmaleficence is one of the duties in conflict. What’s left to make the decision…? E.g.: Intuition!
If intuition is all in the end that a moral decision comes down to then more is needed in order to provide a resolution to the conflict of PF Duties.
Ross’ moderate version of deontology appears to be incomplete. It needs above anything else a means by which to resolve the conflicts to make it more prescriptive.