Deontology Definition Essay

Whilst Deontology has its attractions it fails to provide a reliable foundation for example conclusiveness making Examine and evaluate this claim (30)Deontology is based upon the actions of a person, non the consequences. The word deontology is derived from the Greek word deontos. It was developed by Immanuel Kant and it is an absolutistic a priori surmisal, the phrase a priori centre it is knowable through experience and absolutist means at that place be fixed rules that put up non be changed. This means Kant believed the avocation of the moral even upeousness was unchangeable and through experience, if everyone followed these rules the world would be a better place.Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure reason in this book he devised his deontological surmise of duty. He believed it is the duty of one to follow the moral law and non judge situations with findings, inclination, love and compassion.Kant also believed that all humans attempt for summum bonum which is the state when all human virtue and happiness are united. To helper passel on their way to moral decision Immanuel Kant devised the categorical imperative, this is in contrast to the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative normally starts sentence with an if e.g. if you beseech to complete a undecomposed essay you must spend period on it, where as a categorical imperative tells you that you should do something, e.g. you should span your teeth in the morning. This then was devised into three unalike rules on how to hold out your life The Universal Law, Treat Humans as Ends in Themselves and fare as if you live in a Kingdom of Ends.Kants here and now principle in the categorical imperative,So act that you treat humanity, some(prenominal) in your own person and in the person of every opposite human being, never merely as a means, alone ever so at the same time as an endThis shows that it could be an seductive possible action as it has grievous intentions in m ind.Like m whatever theories, Deontology has its strengths and weaknesses. one(a) of its main strengths is that it is an absolutist theory. This means it is either per se good or bad, e.g. do non commit murder.This is a major strength as it makes an easy theory hoi polloi to follow. This may attract people towards the theory as it shows guidelines to follow which some people may rely on to make their moral decision making. Another reason why it may attract people is because the rules are fixed so they do not have to question the rules whether they are right or wrong them only when have to obey them keeping them in a comfortable position. This makes the theory practical in everyday use and people can matter upon the theory also on that point is no need to do any calculations.However there are many counterpoint views to this strength. One of them is how people can become dependant on the theory. If they become to dependant upon the theory and it does not help them in a situa tion on moral decision making they may struggle to think of what to do next. WD Ross devised the conceit of prima facie duties, this means world-class appearance. This is when we follow our duty unless there is an all overturn obligation, e.g. copulation a white lie to make someone flavor good about them self. This goes against the principle of duty as you must not lie but you could argue that you ordain smack morally good about yourself if you make another person feel good. Therefore this does not help is moral decision making as you have conflicting duties.Strength to this theory is that justice is always the absolute. This means only intrinsically right actions are accounted for. This can be seen with Kants statement of good will.it is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world, or regular out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, boot out good will.This shows that only good will is the only good we can achieve from the world.By justice b eing an absolute it means that you cannot rationalize immoral actions. This is attractive because it shows that by following this theory you will not act unmorally and you will be able to reach that summum bonum as you are fulfilled with good deeds. By not being able to do any intrinsically bad actions this will make people feel it is a reliable theory because if you follow these set rules you will not harm another person.Although it seeks justice, it does not seek the best interest of the majority, this means the minority may feel that justice has been do but on the other hand the majority may feel that justice has not been served. Personally I feel by pleasing the majority I will end up with a better outcome because there will greater happiness, this links in with Utilitarianism and the greatest pleasure over the greatest pain. Another reason why this theory has its flaws is the summum bonum.The summum bonum is the ultimate accomplishment but it can only be achieved by having an immortal soulfulness as it cannot be achieved in the lifetime. This shows links with religion, even though Kant rejected theological arguments with the existence of perfection. This strikes a problem because not everyone believes in God so how could you follow the theory if you do not believe in his existence. in the long run it is to legalistic because it assumes everyone is a law abiding person, people have different intentions so by assuming everyone has the intention of justice is wrong.To see whether is unfeignedly does fail these reliabilities we have to compare the strengths with the weaknesses.A weakness to the theory is that there are no limits to what can be universalised. This is because in one persons state of mind something may seem perfectly hunky-dory to another persons state of mind, e.g. a chronically down(p) person. They may feel suicide is perfectly acceptable. This links in with the first law of the categorical imperativeDo not act on any principle that ca nnot be universalised.This means moral laws should be taken into account into all situations. Again this is wrong because who is to say one right action is another persons right action, this makes it very undependable with moral decision making.However if you take into account what the majority feel is wrong or right you could come to a conclusion on universal rules. This can be seen with rules such as do not commit murder as most people do not tolerate that and it is safe to say they do not agree with it.Finally another weakness is that Immanuel Kant starts to argue now is to be done but what ought to be done, this is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy.This is a weakness because it makes people feel as he is in control and he is telling what should and shouldnt be done. This is a weakness because Kant has different agreement on morals to another agreement, again he is assuming the masses will agree with this method making unreliable. By Kant saying what ought to be done he is showi ng what he feels is intrinsically good and that may deviate from another.On the other hand by Kant saying he ought sooner of is, it shows he is laying down ground rules and some people may like this as they will have rules to follow making it a attractive and reliable moral decision making theory.