NOTES ON DEONTOLOGY

Deontology: A Comprehensive and Detailed Discussion

Deontology is a branch of moral philosophy that asserts that the morality of an action is
determined by its adherence to rules or duties, rather than the consequences it produces. The
term itself comes from the Greek words deon (meaning duty) and logos (meaning study or
theory), so it can be translated as the "study of duty." In other words, deontological ethics is
concerned with whether actions themselves are right or wrong, irrespective of the outcomes.
The most prominent and influential proponent of deontology is the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), whose ethical theory has shaped much of modern moral
philosophy. Kant argued that morality is grounded in rationality and that individuals have a
duty to follow moral laws or principles, regardless of the results of their actions.
Core Concepts of Deontology
1. Duty and Moral Law: Deontologists believe that there are objective moral duties or
rules that one must follow. These duties do not depend on the results of one's actions
but are inherently binding. In Kantian terms, these duties are based on categorical
imperatives—commands that apply universally and unconditionally, to all rational
beings.
2. Categorical Imperative: Kant introduced the concept of the categorical imperative,
which is the central principle in his deontological moral philosophy. The categorical
imperative commands one to act only in a way that the action could be a universal law
that everyone could follow. Kant formulated it in several ways:
o First formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the
same time, will that it should become a universal law.
o Second formulation: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end,
never merely as a means.
This implies that individuals should respect the autonomy and intrinsic worth of others, never
using them solely as instruments to achieve personal goals.
3. Moral Absolutism: Deontologists often advocate for moral absolutism, the idea that
certain actions are always morally required or forbidden, regardless of the context or
consequences. For instance, under deontological ethics, lying might be considered
always wrong, regardless of whether lying would save a life or prevent harm.
4. Intrinsic Value of Actions: Deontologists hold that actions themselves have intrinsic
moral value. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its adherence to
moral rules or duties, not by the consequences it brings about. For example, telling the
truth is seen as morally good because it fulfills the duty of honesty, irrespective of
whether telling the truth causes harm.
Kantian Deontology
Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics is perhaps the most influential framework within this
moral tradition. His ethical system emphasizes the role of reason in determining moral duties
and the necessity of treating others with respect. Key aspects of Kant’s approach include:
1. Autonomy and Rationality: Kant believed that moral agents must be rational and
autonomous, meaning they can act according to reason and are free to make their own
choices. This rational capacity allows them to understand and act on moral laws.
2. Moral Law and the Good Will: According to Kant, the only thing that is good without
qualification is a good will. A good will is the intention to act in accordance with moral
 duty, irrespective of the outcomes. It is through the exercise of a good will that one can
fulfill their duties and act morally.
3. Duty over Consequences: Kant rejected consequentialist theories (such as
utilitarianism) that prioritize outcomes over actions. For Kant, the moral worth of an
action is determined by the agent’s intention and whether they follow the moral law,
rather than the consequences of their actions.
4. Universalizability: Kant’s principle of universalizability requires that one act in such a
way that the maxim (or principle) behind their action could be applied universally,
without contradiction. For instance, if you believe it is acceptable to lie in a particular
situation, you must ask whether it would be acceptable for everyone to lie in similar
situations. If the answer is no, then the action is morally impermissible.
The Role of Rights in Deontology
Deontology also emphasizes the importance of rights. According to deontological theories,
individuals have certain rights that must be respected. For example, the right to life, freedom
of speech, or privacy can be seen as duties that others must respect. Kant’s formulation of the
second categorical imperative—that one should treat others as ends in themselves, not
merely as means—has important implications for how we respect the rights of others.
Deontologists typically argue that violating a person’s rights is morally wrong, regardless of
the benefits it may produce. This is in stark contrast to consequentialist frameworks like
utilitarianism, which may justify violating rights if doing so leads to a greater overall good.
Key Strengths of Deontological Ethics
1. Clarity and Objectivity: Deontological ethics provides clear guidelines for moral
behavior. Its reliance on duty and moral law makes it possible to make ethical decisions
without needing to calculate complex consequences. This makes it more
straightforward than consequentialist theories, which can sometimes require uncertain
or subjective calculations about outcomes.
2. Respect for Individual Rights: One of the strengths of deontological ethics is its
strong emphasis on respecting individuals’ rights and dignity. Since deontology rejects
the idea that one can treat people merely as a means to an end, it offers a robust
defense of human rights.
3. Moral Consistency: Deontological theories provide consistency in moral reasoning, as
they require that duties are followed universally. A moral duty is binding on all rational
agents at all times, and it is not contingent on particular circumstances or
consequences.
4. Rejection of Moral Relativism: Deontologists assert that moral principles are
objective and universal, rejecting the idea that moral truths are relative to cultures,
societies, or individual preferences.
Key Criticisms of Deontological Ethics
1. Rigidity and Absolutism: One of the main criticisms of deontology is that it can be
excessively rigid. For example, Kantian ethics might require one to act according to a
rule even when it leads to harmful or undesirable outcomes. If a lie is morally
impermissible, a person may be required to tell the truth even in situations where lying
would prevent significant harm, such as lying to protect someone’s life.
2. Conflicting Duties: Another challenge faced by deontological ethics is the problem of
conflicting duties. What happens if two duties conflict? For instance, if one has a duty to
tell the truth but also a duty to protect someone from harm, these duties might seem
incompatible. Deontologists must confront how to prioritize duties when they conflict.
 3. Inflexibility to Context: Deontology can sometimes be criticized for not taking into
account the specific context or circumstances of a moral situation. Critics argue that
ethical decision-making must involve sensitivity to the nuances of particular cases,
which a rigid adherence to rules might overlook.
4. Consequences Matter: Many critics, particularly from the consequentialist camp,
argue that outcomes do matter and should not be ignored in moral decision-making.
For example, if telling the truth leads to unnecessary harm or suffering, a purely
deontological approach might still require that the truth be told, which critics argue is
morally questionable.
Divine Command Theory: A Comprehensive Discussion
Divine Command Theory (DCT) is an ethical theory that asserts that moral rightness and
wrongness are determined by the commands or will of a divine being (most commonly God).
In other words, actions are morally obligatory, permissible, or forbidden based on the will or
commands of a higher power. This theory forms the basis of many religious ethical systems
and has been particularly influential in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam), though variations of it are also found in other religious traditions.
Core Principles of Divine Command Theory
1. God as the Source of Morality: At its core, Divine Command Theory holds that
morality is grounded in the will of God. Moral rules are not autonomous, intrinsic, or
discoverable by human reason or empirical investigation. Instead, they are given by
God. What is morally right or wrong is thus contingent upon God's commands, which
serve as the ultimate standard of moral authority.
2. Moral Obligation is Defined by Divine Will: Under DCT, individuals are morally
obligated to act in accordance with God's will. This means that moral duties are not
discovered through human reason alone but are instead revealed through divine
revelation, scripture, or religious tradition. The rightness or wrongness of an action is
determined by whether it aligns with the commands of God.
3. Theological Voluntarism: One version of DCT is theological voluntarism, which
asserts that something is morally good simply because God commands it. In this view,
God's commands are not guided by any external or independent moral standard;
rather, God's will is the ultimate determinant of moral goodness. For example, if God
commands us to love our neighbor, then love is good because God commands it, not
because love itself has inherent goodness.
4. God's Omnipotence: According to DCT, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), and His will
is not limited by any external constraints. This means that if God were to command
something (even something seemingly immoral by human standards), it would be
considered morally obligatory. The power of God is absolute, and His commands are
binding on all individuals.
The Relationship Between Morality and Religion
In Divine Command Theory, the relationship between religion and morality is inextricable. The
theory posits that true morality can only be known through revelation and divine law. This
contrasts with secular moral theories, which argue that morality can be grounded in reason,
human nature, or social contracts rather than the divine. Divine Command Theory holds that
God's will provides the moral framework necessary for human beings to live virtuously.
Historical Development of Divine Command Theory
Divine Command Theory has deep roots in the religious traditions of the world. It has been
most notably discussed within the context of monotheistic religions, where God is seen as the
ultimate lawgiver. A few key figures and events in the development of DCT include:
 1. Ancient Religious Texts: The Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, found
in the Bible, are an early example of a divine moral code. These commandments offer a
clear set of moral guidelines believed to have been given by God, which should be
followed by all adherents. Similarly, in Islam, the Qur'an is regarded as the ultimate
source of divine law and morality.
2. Philosophical Foundations in the Middle Ages: Philosophers such as Augustine of
Hippo and Thomas Aquinas have contributed significantly to the development of DCT.
Augustine, for instance, argued that God's will is the source of moral order, and that
moral law is derived from God's nature and commands. Aquinas, a Christian theologian
and philosopher, asserted that God's will and human reason work together; while
reason can guide us toward certain moral truths, God's divine law is needed for the
fullness of moral guidance.
3. Modern and Contemporary Debate: In modern philosophy, DCT has been discussed
and critiqued by a variety of thinkers. The works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant,
who argued that morality is based on rational principles rather than divine will, and
Friedrich Nietzsche, who challenged traditional religious moralities, stand in contrast to
Divine Command Theory. Contemporary philosophers continue to explore the
relationship between religion and morality, with some defending DCT and others
criticizing it.
Key Features and Arguments of Divine Command Theory
1. Moral Objectivism: DCT implies a form of moral objectivism, the idea that there are
objective moral truths that are grounded in the will of God. These moral truths are not
subjective, nor are they dependent on individual preferences or societal norms. God’s
commands are seen as universal and eternal, applying to all rational beings regardless
of culture, time, or place.
2. Divine Revelation: For those who adhere to DCT, moral knowledge is primarily
derived from divine revelation. Religious scriptures (such as the Bible, the Qur'an, or
the Torah) and prophetic teachings are seen as the primary means through which God's
will is made known to humanity. In this sense, religious texts are not just spiritual
guides but are also seen as moral codes that prescribe right behavior.
3. Accountability to God: In this framework, individuals are morally accountable to God
for their actions. This accountability is both personal and communal, as adherence to
divine commandments is seen as fulfilling one’s duties as a servant or follower of God.
Human beings are often viewed as stewards of God's creation, and moral actions are
seen as a form of worship or devotion to God.
4. Ethical Absolutism: DCT often carries the implication of ethical absolutism,
meaning that moral duties are absolute and unchanging. If an action is wrong according
to God’s commands, it is wrong at all times and in all circumstances. For example, the
act of murder may be viewed as universally wrong, regardless of context or
consequences, simply because it is prohibited by divine law.
Challenges to Divine Command Theory
Despite its appeal within religious communities, Divine Command Theory has faced several
significant philosophical criticisms:
1. The Euthyphro Dilemma: One of the most famous challenges to DCT comes from
Plato's Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether something is good because God
commands it, or if God commands it because it is good. This dilemma presents two
options:
 o If actions are good merely because God commands them, then morality seems
arbitrary. God could command anything—such as cruelty or injustice—and it
would be deemed morally right, which many find unacceptable.
o If God commands something because it is good, then goodness is independent of
God’s will, and God’s commands are simply recognizing moral truths that exist
outside of Himself. This raises the question of whether moral authority resides
with God or with an external moral order.
This dilemma challenges the idea that morality can be grounded purely in divine will,
suggesting that moral standards might exist independently of divine commands.
2. Moral Autonomy: Critics of DCT argue that it undermines moral autonomy, the idea
that individuals should have the capacity to make their own moral judgments. If
morality is solely determined by divine command, individuals may lack the freedom to
exercise moral reasoning independently. This can lead to the view that humans are
merely following orders, rather than engaging in meaningful moral deliberation.
3. Pluralism and Diversity of Religious Beliefs: In a world with multiple religions,
each with its own conception of God and divine commands, DCT faces the problem of
religious pluralism. Different religions offer differing moral codes based on their
understanding of God's will. This raises the question of which, if any, of these divine
commands is correct, and how followers of various faiths can claim moral authority over
others.
4. The Problem of Evil: Some critics argue that the existence of evil or suffering in the
world is inconsistent with the idea of a morally perfect God who commands goodness. If
a benevolent God is the source of all morality, why would He allow such widespread
suffering? This problem, known as the "problem of evil," challenges both the goodness
and omnipotence of God, and in turn, the moral framework that Divine Command
Theory provides.
5. Dependence on Religious Belief: Divine Command Theory’s reliance on religious
belief for its moral guidance may not be accessible to everyone, especially in secular
societies or for those who do not adhere to a specific religious tradition. Critics argue
that moral obligations cannot depend on belief in a deity or divine revelation, but must
instead be based on universal human reasoning.
Defending Divine Command Theory
Proponents of DCT offer several responses to these criticisms:
1. Divine Perfection: Defenders of DCT often argue that God’s commands are never
arbitrary but are rooted in His perfect nature. God, being omnibenevolent and
omniscient, can be trusted to issue commands that are in the best interest of humanity.
Therefore, the moral commands of God are inherently good because they flow from His
perfect nature.
2. Euthyphro Dilemma Resolution: Some theologians argue that the Euthyphro
dilemma is a false dichotomy. They suggest that God’s commands are not arbitrary but
reflect His nature, meaning that what God commands is intrinsically good because it
reflects His nature as a perfect, all-good being.
3. Universal Moral Law: Many religious defenders argue that despite religious diversity,
all major world religions share core moral principles (such as the prohibitions against
murder, theft, and lying) because these reflect the will of the same ultimate deity.
4. Moral Accountability: Proponents of DCT argue that being accountable to God does
not undermine human moral autonomy but rather provides a foundation for objective
 moral values. Divine commands guide moral decision-making in a way that enables
individuals to make moral choices while recognizing their moral obligations.
A common distinction within deontological ethics is the categorization into strong and weak
forms of deontology. These two variations differ in how strictly they apply moral rules and
duties in specific situations. Here’s a detailed exploration of both types:
1. Strong Deontology
Strong Deontology represents the more rigid, rule-based approach to deontological ethics.
It maintains that moral duties and principles are absolute and must be followed in all
situations, regardless of the consequences. In this view, the rightness or wrongness of an
action is determined solely by whether it adheres to a moral rule or duty. No exceptions or
trade-offs are allowed, even when breaking the rule might lead to better outcomes.
Key Characteristics of Strong Deontology:
 Moral Absolutism: Strong deontology holds that there are objective, universal moral
duties that must always be followed, without exception. The moral rule applies in all
situations, regardless of circumstances or outcomes.
 No Exception for Consequences: The moral value of an action is not contingent
upon its consequences. Even if violating a moral rule would result in better overall
consequences (e.g., saving lives), it is still morally wrong. For example, lying to protect
someone’s life would still be considered morally wrong in a strong deontological
system.
 Emphasis on Duty and Obligation: In strong deontology, moral duties are seen as
binding on all rational beings. These duties do not change based on the specific context
or the agent’s personal interests. For example, a duty to tell the truth is binding at all
times, regardless of the potential harm that truth-telling might cause.

Example of Strong Deontology:

 Kantian Ethics: Immanuel Kant’s philosophy is a prominent example of strong
deontology. According to Kant, one must act according to a categorical imperative,
which commands that one should act only according to maxims that can be
universalized (i.e., that can be consistently applied to all rational agents in all
circumstances). For Kant, telling the truth is a duty, and even in cases where a lie might
save a life, one should not lie. This is because the duty to tell the truth is absolute and
does not depend on the outcomes.
Advantages of Strong Deontology:
 Clarity and Consistency: The rigid application of rules leads to clear moral
guidelines, which can be easier to follow and enforce.
 Protection of Rights and Autonomy: By adhering strictly to moral duties, strong
deontology upholds the intrinsic worth and dignity of individuals, ensuring they are not
used merely as means to an end.
Criticisms of Strong Deontology:
 Rigidity and Lack of Flexibility: One major criticism is that it fails to account for the
complexities of real-world situations. For instance, in a situation where telling the truth
leads to harm, strong deontology might require the morally wrong outcome (e.g.,
someone dying) simply because the rule against lying must always be followed.
  Conflict of Duties: Strong deontologists may face challenges when two moral duties
conflict. For example, a duty to protect someone’s life might conflict with a duty to tell
the truth. Strong deontology offers little guidance on how to prioritize such duties.

2. Weak Deontology
Weak Deontology, on the other hand, is more flexible and allows for exceptions or balancing
of duties, especially when the consequences of following a rule could result in significant harm
or injustice. While weak deontologists still emphasize the importance of duties and rules, they
may allow for the possibility of violating or adjusting rules when doing so results in a greater
good or prevents harm.
Key Characteristics of Weak Deontology:
 Contextual Flexibility: Weak deontology allows moral duties to be interpreted in light
of the specific circumstances of a situation. It recognizes that while rules and duties are
important, they might be overridden or adjusted in cases where adhering to them
would lead to serious harm or morally undesirable outcomes.
 Balancing Duties and Consequences: In weak deontology, there may be situations
where duties can be prioritized or balanced against other moral considerations,
including the consequences of an action. A weak deontologist might allow exceptions
when following the duty leads to a morally worse outcome than violating the duty.
 Non-Absolutist Approach: Weak deontologists do not believe that moral duties are
always absolute. While they recognize the importance of following moral rules, they
allow for moral judgment in cases where following a duty would lead to a conflict with
other duties or important moral values.
Example of Weak Deontology:
 Rule-Utilitarianism or Proportionalism: Some versions of deontology that
incorporate elements of consequentialism can be classified as weak deontologies. For
example, a rule-utilitarian framework might allow the suspension of a rule in certain
situations if doing so would lead to a better overall outcome. In weak deontology, one
might permit an exception to a duty, such as lying to protect a life, if the consequences
of telling the truth would lead to harm.
Advantages of Weak Deontology:
 Flexibility: Weak deontology provides more practical guidance for real-world moral
decision-making by allowing moral agents to consider consequences and make
exceptions when necessary.
 Contextual Sensitivity: By considering the specific context and the potential
outcomes of actions, weak deontology can offer more nuanced ethical guidance in
complex situations.
Criticisms of Weak Deontology:
 Uncertainty and Subjectivity: Critics argue that weak deontology can lead to
uncertainty, as it requires moral agents to make judgment calls about when rules
should be overridden. This can lead to subjective interpretations of moral duties and
inconsistent decision-making.
 Moral Slippery Slope: Some argue that allowing exceptions to moral rules can lead to
a slippery slope, where the boundaries of what is permissible become too vague,
ultimately undermining the moral system altogether.
Comparison of Strong and Weak Deontology

Aspect Strong Deontology Weak Deontology

Nature of Can be adjusted based on context

Absolute and universal; no exceptions
Duties and consequences

Flexible, allows for exceptions or

Flexibility Rigid, with little room for exceptions
balancing

Moral
Considers consequences and
Decision- Follows strict rules regardless of outcomes
context in decision-making
Making

Conflict of Provides limited guidance for resolving Allows for prioritization or

Duties conflicts balancing of duties

Rule-utilitarianism, or
Example Kantian ethics (e.g., truth-telling, no lying) proportionalism (e.g., justifying
lying in some situations)

Can lead to moral ambiguity and

Criticisms Too rigid, can lead to harmful outcomes
inconsistency

Conclusion
The distinction between strong and weak deontology lies in how strictly the theory applies
moral duties and rules. Strong deontology upholds moral duties as absolute and unchanging,
without regard for consequences or context, while weak deontology allows for more flexibility,
permitting exceptions when following a rule would result in undesirable outcomes.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Strong deontology offers clarity,
consistency, and a strong commitment to individual rights, but it can be criticized for its
rigidity and lack of flexibility in complex situations. Weak deontology, on the other hand, is
more pragmatic and allows for nuanced moral decision-making, but it may be criticized for
being too subjective and inconsistent.
Ultimately, the choice between strong and weak deontology depends on how one balances
the need for moral rules and duties with the practical realities of decision-making in a
complex world.

SOURCES:
AQUINAS, THOMAS. “On Law, Eternal Law, and Natural Law.” Summa Theologiae. Vol 28,
edited by Thomas Gilby, 5-97. New York: Black Friars/McGraw Hill, 1966.
ARISTOTLE. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Martin Oswald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill
Educational Publishing, 1983.
Blackwell Philosophy Guides. 2013. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, Second
Edition. Edited by Hugh LaFollette and Ingmar Persson. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.

Buenaflor, Lionel E., et. Al. 2018. Unraveling the Absolute Moral Principle: Ethics for
Filipino Students. Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.;

Bulaong, Oscar Jr. G., et al. 2018. Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation. Quezon City:
Rex Printing Company, Inc.;
Copp, David. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Gensler, Harry. 2011. Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, Second Edition. New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Graham, Gordon. 2011. Theories of Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with a

Selection of Classic Readings. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

KANT, IMMANUEL. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, with On a Supposed Right to
Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Third edition. Translated by James W.
Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1993.
KOHLBERG, LAWRENCE. Essays on Moral Development. Vol. 1 of The Philosophy of Moral
Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1981.
MacKinnon, Barbara & Fiala, Andrew. 2018. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues,
Ninth Edition. Boston, USA: CENGAGE Learning.

MILL, JOHN STUART. Utilitarianism. 2nd edition. Edited, with an introduction by George
Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2001.