There are many different theories of moral philosophy. Each of these theories has pros and cons, but it up to us to decide which is best for use in every day life. This paper will look at deontology. First, I will define what is deontology. Second, I will run a case study of deontology examining the drug dealers in the documentary the house I live in. Third, and finally I will argue whether, in every case, we should accept deontology as the correct form of moral philosophy.
The theory of deontology is best known from the philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 1700’s. In Immanuel Kant’s deontology there are three key principles of morality. The first being that “an action must be done from one’s duty of moral worth”. What this means is whatever …show more content…
In the documentary, it is explained that the drug dealers were the ones that everybody looked up to and respected. A citizen in the documentary quotes, “when the dealer came around it was like Christmas”. The reason for this being was because they took care of their people especially the children. They would buy them ice cream, Jordan shoes, and giving them cash. They would tell them that they were going to protect them, also when they get older, they would allow them to make money on their own by dealing drugs. This where the morality issue lies. On the surface, it looks like the drug dealers are morally permissible because if we only use the categorical imperative, without there maxim, one would think that they are being moral. We would want everybody to take care of the people in their neighborhood, but as we see that is not morally permissible because deontology is built around the maxim of the individual. The drug dealer’s maxim is not to make their people happy, but instead it is so that the dealers can move up a rung on the ladder. They are using people as a mere end, which is a huge issues in deontology. According to Kant’s deontology, one is never supposed to use a person as a means to an end. They also lie to people, because when they convince them to be drug dealers, they put them in harm’s way breaking the drug dealers promise to keep them …show more content…
Due to the fact that deontology states that outcomes do not matter and that we cannot look at each case situationally because of the categorical imperative, we must not accept deontology as the sole theory of moral philosophy in every case. As the analogy in the early part of this paper explains, according to deontology the individual that tries to cure cancer but instead kills all the users is morally permissible. That is the wrong way to think and view all things. We cannot just forget the results even if the person had a good maxim, because we must have consequences to our actions. If we do not, then people can get away with anything as long as they were “trying to be
The theory of deontology is best known from the philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 1700’s. In Immanuel Kant’s deontology there are three key principles of morality. The first being that “an action must be done from one’s duty of moral worth”. What this means is whatever …show more content…
In the documentary, it is explained that the drug dealers were the ones that everybody looked up to and respected. A citizen in the documentary quotes, “when the dealer came around it was like Christmas”. The reason for this being was because they took care of their people especially the children. They would buy them ice cream, Jordan shoes, and giving them cash. They would tell them that they were going to protect them, also when they get older, they would allow them to make money on their own by dealing drugs. This where the morality issue lies. On the surface, it looks like the drug dealers are morally permissible because if we only use the categorical imperative, without there maxim, one would think that they are being moral. We would want everybody to take care of the people in their neighborhood, but as we see that is not morally permissible because deontology is built around the maxim of the individual. The drug dealer’s maxim is not to make their people happy, but instead it is so that the dealers can move up a rung on the ladder. They are using people as a mere end, which is a huge issues in deontology. According to Kant’s deontology, one is never supposed to use a person as a means to an end. They also lie to people, because when they convince them to be drug dealers, they put them in harm’s way breaking the drug dealers promise to keep them …show more content…
Due to the fact that deontology states that outcomes do not matter and that we cannot look at each case situationally because of the categorical imperative, we must not accept deontology as the sole theory of moral philosophy in every case. As the analogy in the early part of this paper explains, according to deontology the individual that tries to cure cancer but instead kills all the users is morally permissible. That is the wrong way to think and view all things. We cannot just forget the results even if the person had a good maxim, because we must have consequences to our actions. If we do not, then people can get away with anything as long as they were “trying to be