Kant's Theory Of Moral Deontology

Morals and ethics have never been the same but they do revolve around the difference of ideas on what is “right” and what is “wrong”. While our morals tend to be more internal to an individual their ethics are external and belong to a particular group or culture from a certain social system. When it comes to acting appropriately there is always a decision to be made that involves ones feelings and their ethical duty. Through deontology I believe a moral rule is one that is required by rationality and reason reached through what we call the categorical imperative. More an ethic of conduct than an ethic of character deontology parallels the idea that ones actions must satisfy traditional values like honesty, loyalty, and fairness. Along side …show more content…
It is true that when a person feels he or she has been done wrong, thought right away is “what if I did the same too you?” and the idea that people should not be a means to an end. Deontology is a non-consequentialist moral theory that I believe rightly stands on the idea that simply being dependent on maximizing the good despite the action is okay. Consequentialist focus more on the majority and I believe that just because the majority might overcome the minority, fairness is a still a virtue that comes into play along with the guilt when playing fair is not exercised. Kant works through the construction of his theory by offering consistency as a necessary component to a moral code. A simple illustration might be what happens when a store manager comes across a customer who wants to return something. The manager of a retail store with an obvious return policy may choose to honor the policy or to make exceptions. Subject to the circumstances of a particular return a manager with a strong duty-based ethic would usually follow the policy and make fewer exceptions because she believes that upholding the rules set by her employer is really important and it is her job to do so. Consequentialists who favor for a more positive outcome a higher percentage of the time would possibly be more willing to grant exceptions to keep their …show more content…
The weakness that stands out to most is that there is no rationale or logical foundation for the decision making of an individual's “duties”. For example, a student may decide that it is their duty to always be on time to class. Although this decision makes itself out to be a noble one we do not know why the person chose to make this an important duty. Maybe the reason falls along the lines of this person getting to class early to sit in a specific seat or meet up with a friend before the class starts. This scenario uncovers two other popular faults in deontology including the fact sometimes a persons “duties” will conflict and the value of others is not concerned with this deontology. If the student who must always be on time to class is running late, how are they supposed to get to class quickly by car? Does the person speed, breaking the law and not upholding their duty to abide by it? This scenario with endless conflicting obligations does not lead anyone to think that there is an ethically correct resolution. Because deontology is not based on a specific context of each situation, this ethic of conduct does not provide any help when someone is placed in a position where multiple obligations conflict but there is still a more “right” even if both are