Talk:Deontology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

perhaps this should be deontologic ethics instead, and this page should be about deontology in general, ie. also about deontologic logic just like the teleology page isn't just about teleologic ethics? --Tmh 22:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

remove reference to Thirukural in the 3rd paragraph

Currently, the 3rd paragraphs includes the sentence: "Much of definitions on deontological ethics is found in an ancient Tamil literature Thirukural, which is believed to be written in between 300 BCE and 5th century CE. ". This is a bit misleading, as according to the Thirukural wiki page, this text is about virtues, not about deontological ethics and most definitely not about any definitions. In addition, the sentence itself is ungrammatical. Perhaps this sentence should be removed. 193.40.12.10 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ditch Rand criticisms

Ayn Rand is not a recognized philosopher. The criticisms leveled here amount to little more than a Nietzschean screed, and as such should be put in the mouth of Nietzsche, if included at all. 66.130.41.29 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what Rand has to say, and I strongly object to the harsh and dismissive tone she often takes while discussing philosophers who disagree with her (ie, almost all of them). That's why I reworded and condensed the original paragraph on Rand that someone else contributed--if you check the history, it's much shorter and calmer now. If you're sure that this particular criticism of hers is from Nietzche, by all means, provide a quote from Nietzche, and I'll be thrilled to delete what's left of the Rand paragraph and replace it with a Nietzche paragraph. Otherwise, though, I think it's important to leave something of Rand's in the section, because she does offer a critique of deontology that is not offered elsewhere in the article and that is reasonably coherent / interesting. Invisible Flying Mangoes 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher is ridiculous, both her novels and nonfiction are widely read and touch upon many of the classic issues philosophers have been dealing with. It is however true that she has not been embraced by contemporary academic philosphers, and she made no effort to discuss with them or publish her essays in their magazines either. Her critique of Kant is still relevant on its own merits and should be included in this article, if anyone feels like finding some Nietzshian critique of Kant and include it, please do.

Criticisms of Kant

Well, I took all the old criticisms of Kant's Categorical Imperative from that page, and put them in here, since one of the main arguments for deleting them in toto was that they belonged here rather than there. I do not think that all of these criticisms are equally important, but I do think that it is important the more important ones be addressed SOMEWHERE. Rewritten, perhaps, but not ignored. WhiteC 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Kant's Categorical imperative

"Kant himself wrote that suicide is against the categorical imperative, since matter and existence presuppose, under second order classification, a place apart from the fundamental project of the primordial Dasein (being-there)."

To be logically consistent, this stricture should also apply to homicide as well, because under the stricture "[a]ct only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law," homicide carries with it the risk of consequent homicide of oneself - i.e., suicide. If not, then this argument is a patch-up job, and the explicit criticism of Bertrand Russell in The History Of Western Philosophy - the counterexample of the depressive - does apply to the categorical imperative.

I rewrote a few sentences on Kant's Categorical imperative, but they have been reverted. I don't mind if you guys want to write it a different way, but it's a standard interpretation of what the imperative is. Here's what is on the page currently:

This theory held that particular kinds of acts are morally wrong because they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and thus should not be carried out under any circumstances whatsoever

I am honestly not sure if this is Kant's philosophy (this is a testament to my own ignorance of him, and is to say nothing about the statement itself), but the previous statement makes it clear that the "theory" being outlined in this sentence is, or ought to be, the Categorical imperative, not another aspect of Kant's thought. I wrote this revision in place of the above statement:

This theory held that persons should only act insofar as they will their act to be a universal maxim or prescription of behavior. For instance, one should only lie if they will that it be good for everyone to lie in the same way.

This is the standard interpretation of what the categorical imperative is. Here's an except from the article on the imperative:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

If we want, we can use this wording, for perhaps my own wording was unclear.

FranksValli 08:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is a very important point of Kant's ethical theory, and one that I think is widely misunderstood. Kant did not say that the reason that an act is wrong is that it cannot be universalized. In other words, the moral wrongness of an act is not contained in any particular formulation of the categorical imperative. Rather, the reason an act is wrong is that it is inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being. Since we know that if the maxim of an act cannot be universalized, it is inconsistent with free will, then we can deduce that any maxim that cannot be universalized is morally wrong. Hence the first formulation.

What you wrote seemed to imply that that the moral standard is contained in the first formulation. It is not. The first formulation models our (or rather, Kant's) moral reasoning. --causa sui ^talk 09:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that I didn't word my explanation well enough - what I am basically saying is that the sentence immediately preceding is specifically addressing the categorical imperative. The natural flow of the argument would have an explanation of the categorical imperative explained, through the standard interpretation I've outlined above, immediately following. It is my fault for not being clear on this.

Perhaps instead of deleting the previous section as I did in my edit, it should follow the explanation of the categorical imperative and also be clarified with what you explained above, so the new paragraph would read something like this:

The most famous deontological theory is that advanced by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant's theory included the idea of a categorical imperative. This theory holds that persons should only act insofar as they will their act to be a universal maxim or prescription of behavior. For instance, one should only lie if they will that it be good for everyone to lie in the same way. This imperative is based on Kant's view that particular kinds of acts are morally wrong because they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and thus should not be carried out under any circumstances whatsoever. Other examples of deontological theorists include the English philosopher John Locke, who held that individual persons have inviolable rights that are part of the natural law of the world and can be demonstrated by reason.

FranksValli 09:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I found the source of the problem - in the original section ("This theory held that particular kinds..."), does "this theory" refer to the categorical imperative or Kant's theory more broadly construed? I think this is where I'm confused. FranksValli 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The categorical imperative is a feature of his broader theory: Think of it as an organizing idea around which the rest of our moral thinking is directed. Kant says that his project in moral philosophy is to discover a categorical imperative, and he claims to have found it. I think I understand what you're doing here, and I'll try one edit before I head to bed. --causa sui ^talk 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks much better now  :) FranksValli 21:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The last line of the first paragraph reads: "Therefore, consequentialism is the philosophical antithesis of this theory." This seems clearer to me: "Therefore, this is the philosophical antithesis of consequentialism." My opinion may be biased because I am a consequentialist. This is really a trivial thing I realize...

Just as a matter of clarification: Kant presented 3 formulations of the moral law: The formula of universal law, the formula of humanity, and the formula of the kingdom of ends. The former two are often viewed as the most important formulations to understanding his philosophy. FUL basically does state that an act is immoral if the maxim upon which it was founded cannot be universalized. FH basically says that an act is immoral if it fails to respect the dignity and freedom of a person (i.e. treating that person as merely a means, instead of an end in themselves).

These two formulas are to be taken together, but are also synonymous; not only (according to Kant) can both be dervied a priori from reason, but they are just saying the same thing in different way. An act that fails to respect someone as an end cannot be universalized, and likewise acts that can't be universalized often fail the CI because they require making exceptions for yourself, whereby you treat others as merely means to your own self-serving ends. The CI can be considered a test, but really the clause Categorical Imperative refers to the nature of demands imposed upon us by the moral law. These demands categorical in that they are objective and universal, and imperative describes the strength of the claim the moral law has on us, the necessity to act in accordance with the negative duties commanded by the moral law. "Thou Shalt Not ___" (lie, cheat, act on maxims that cannot be universalized, treat others as means only). Shaggorama 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The passage in the article regarding whether lying is ever morally permissible is erroneous. Kant wrote in his essay, "On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns", that "Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in praeiudicium alterius). For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right [Rechtsquette] ... All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth ... This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles." (trns. by James W. Ellington). It doesn't matter whether an individual rephrases his personal maxim to avoid mentioning "lying" because his personal maxim would still fail Kant's formula of universals and would not conform with the moral law. --NPaterian (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, although this is not an article I study, while trying to understand the latest update, I saw that there are unbalanced parentheses in the 3rd lead paragraph, so something else must be amiss, starting from the passage '(Non-absolutist deontologists ...' --Ancheta Wis (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of demonizing Non-absolutist deontologists I moved the questionable left parenthesis inside the secret comment lurking in said passage. Here is a diff which may help others sort this out --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

"If someone were to do their moral duty, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. Therefore, consequentialism is the philosophical antithesis of this theory."

Can this be expurgated? I just visited this site after a discussion of T.M Scanlon outside of Wikipedia, to understand deontology, and this immediately threw me off. Perhaps it can be relegated to another part of the page.

Major Cleanup Edits

Hi everyone. I'm a Wiki amateur, but I know a fair bit about deontology...I studied it with the Shelly Kagan of the article. I just did some major cleanup, and I tried to keep it NPOV both with respect to the consequentialism/deontology debate and the details on Kant are relevant / details on Kant are irrelevant debate. I think this page needs some more meat...basically what it's got is a rough dictionary definition and a quick history of people who agreed or disagreed with it. Can we add anything about the broader significance of deontological ethics, maybe in terms of military history or current bioethics debates or something? Let's brainstorm.

130.132.231.50 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)jason.green-lowe@yale.edu

Thanks. The cleanup looks much better. Perhaps an illustrative example or two would be good. Duty to country -v- duty to commanding officer... I'm thinking of that movie (whose name I forget - 'Perfect Duty'?) with Jack Kinnison as the commander at the military base in Guantanamo Bay. I'm not sure which US law or amendment this involves. As far as bioethics goes, are you talking about duty to the unborn ? WhiteC 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific Criticisms of Kant's Ethics

I don't think this paragraph should be part of this article. The article is about deontological ethics. Therefore, only informatin about deontological ethics per se should be included. This paragraph entitled "specific criticisms of Kant's Ethics" does not deal with the topic of the article, since Kant's ethic is only a certain versian of deontological ethics. For example, a deontological philosopher must not necessarily believe like Kant that lying is wrong under any circumstance. Therefore, the dispute between Kant and Constable does not apply to deontological ethics per se and should be deleted. Kikl 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Kant's ethical system is the major instance of deontological ethics. This section was removed from the Categorical Imperative page and placed here because editors of that page felt it did not belong there, and I didn't want to see it deleted (look at that article's talk page for details). I think it contains valuable criticisms, although it seems to be a case of NIMBY (not in my back yard)--everybody thinks it shouldn't be in their article, because they want the scope of their article to be narrower. Suggestions of where the criticism SHOULD go would be appreciated. I will look at more general articles on Kant, and see what people say. WhiteC 07:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Like the critique section. For reference there can try Pojman's Ethical Theory, "Utilitarianism". 22:52, 8 October 2006 (GMT +08:00)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.7.150 (talk • contribs)

Purging of Rand

I note that an IP editor purged Rand's statements about Kant from the criticism section. Regardless of one's personal opinions on objectivism, her criticisms are relevant and should not be unilaterally purged with no consensus gathering. If I am missing a larger protracted debate on this matter, by all means fill me in. - WeniWidiWiki 17:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Invisible Flying Mangoes 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

specific real world examples

there should be specific real world examples for every abstract statement included in the article, philiosophical discourse, must always strive to be clear and grounded relating concepts to scenarios in reality. 43trey643 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shelly Kagan

Shelly Kagan, a current professor of philosophy at Yale University, notes in support of Mill and Bentham that under deontology, individuals are bound by constraints (such as the requirement not to murder), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). His line of attack on deontology is first to show that constraints are invariably immoral, and then to show that options are immoral without constraints.

In every Wikipedia article, there is a paragraph that makes so little sense, but appeals to such authority, that no one is man enough to delete it. That's what I'd call the above. Some guy had an opinion once, and someone wrote one sentence about it, and it didn't work. Anyway, all I'm really saying is I have no idea what that paragraph says, and I don't think anyone else does either.--Mrcolj 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what it says. It happens to be wrong and grossly misinterprets Kant, so it doesn't matter. 72.144.198.53 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning and intent seem reasonably clear to me, as well. (Eek, I just posted a "me too" to wikipedia!) I suspect if user Mrcol revisits this part of the article later, s/he will also find it more tractable than when Mrcol originally read it with eyes beginning to glaze over. We all have moments like that. Since I am more subject to such moments than most other folks (due to medical affliction), the fact that I didn't glaze over while reading the quote serves as a useful barometer. In other words, if even I understand its meaning, then it probably means something. (Rightness/wrongness of its meaning is, of course, a completely separate matter.) 69.17.65.50 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial definition changed

Dear readers: I noticed that this article was tagged for lack of sourcing. I added a plain vanilla dictionary definition of deontology, with a citation. I hasten to add that I have no discernable specialized knowledge of this subject (this is, after all, Wikipedia). Someone else can probably come up with a better definition, but a replacement should also be sourced. Yours, Famspear 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aggression Principle

This article is missing one of the biggest deontological ethics in the world: the non-aggression principle. Murray Rothbard derived it from self-ownership, while Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. The former led to natural law libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, while the latter led to objectivism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'the non-agression principle' is not a 'deontological ethics'. It need not even be regarded as a deontological principle, as it could be supported by consequesntialist/teleological ethics. Anarchia 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'Is Deontology Right for Me' does not exist.

The article mentions a book called 'Is Deontology Right for Me?' by Robert Courage. This should be removed. No such book exists, as far as Google knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.214.83 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--49.138.242.125 (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)== C. D. Broad == the term deontological was first used in 1930- C.D. broad's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.177.179 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This Whole Article is Inconsistent with Definitions of "Deontology" at Stanford Encycl Phil

From opening Wiki article: "Deontological ethics or deontology is an approach to ethics that holds that acts are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of the acts."

From opening of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped... a deontologist [will point to] the fact that in doing so, the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as 'Do unto others as you would be done by'" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/)

Deontology, considered an "approach" asin the Wiki opener, can be shown to be logically inequivalent to what is at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil website.

To change the Wiki opener, in order to be consistent with what is at Stanford, in this an MANY places, will necessitate a major revision of the whole.

Either citations are needed all over, and then a restriction that limits the spin of "deontology" in the current Wiki perspective to be the spin of a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, with at least a passing reference the the alternative at Stanford, or a major revision of the entire article is needed.

I personally would change the Stanford Article, before changing the Wiki article, but "Wiki Standards" necessitate citations referenced to Stanford, or another reliable source, and no "original research" (translated - "citationless assertions inconsistent with approved reliable reseources, like the more-poorly-worded-than-Wiki Stanford article). ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohist canons

Perhaps this article or project might investigate the concepts in Talk:Scientific_method#No_Discussion_of_Chinese_or_Asian_Contributions_to_Science. What is emerging is a 2400-year-old precursor to the current Western viewpoint. Specifically, Chris Fraser's SEP article on Mohist canons lists 4 Mohist principles

1. Morality (yi, also “duty”)
2. Benefit (li) is what is moral or right
3. Kindness (ren, or benevolence)
4. Care (ai, or love) -- as in ai Hua = 'love China' (Hua = 華)

That's what impelled me to reach out to this readership: I could just imagine 1 billion voices

• yi Hua
• li Hua
• ren Hua
• ai Hua

The relevant links are on the talk page listed above. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting point since Knat has much of his wisdom from the Vedas. --Faust (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)