DEONTOLOGY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

UNIT - 2

DEONTOLOGY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

DETERMINISM INDETERMINISM-HUMAN PERSON

Ques.   Deontology (June-2014 100 words)

Ques.   According to Kant what are the essential conditions for morality (June 2011 ,150 words)

Ques.   Critically Analyse Kantian Ethics ( Dec.2011-150 Words)

Ques.     Examine the De-ontology  theory ( Dec.2011-150 Words)

Ques.    Describe the concept of ‘Good will’. ( June.2012-150 Words)

Ques.  Deontology( June.2012-100 Words)

Ques. Elaborate the concept of ‘Deontology’. ( Dec.2012-150 Words)

Ques Categorical imperative (Dec.2012-100 Words)

Ques. Explain Deontology of Kant and its implications( June .2013-250 Words)

Quest why does Kant call moral law as the categorical imperative? ( Dec.2013-150 Words)

Ques Good will( Dec.2013-100 Words)

Ques Explain ‘good will’ according to Kant. ( June.2014-150 Words)

Ques.  Explain deontology. Illustrate different types of norms and make a distinction between values and norms. ( Dec.2014-500 Words)

Ques. Explain freedom as one of the three postulates in Kantian ethics( Dec. 2014 -250 Words)

Ques.  Categorical Imperative  ( Dec.2014-100 Words)

Freedom as one of the three postulates:

                     As one of three postulates of morality freedom is the ‘condition of possibility’ of the categorical imperative. Though it cannot be proved theoretically by pure reason yet it is a necessary assumption for moral action.  Through this ideal of freedom Kant’s concept of synthetic a priori imperative is possible.   Its negative interpretation is this that it does not involve any logical contradiction.  From the point of view of practical reason, freedom is a necessity for any moral agent.

                     According to Kant, being a noumenal entity, human person is not confined to the phenomenal world which is determined by causality.  One has to conform to the moral law in order to achieve the virtue which is supreme good.  But being a bit lenient Kant allows happiness also as part of supreme good.  Virtue along with happiness is the ‘supreme good’.  The two are related with each other as synthetic a priori factors.  But since experience does not prove the connection between virtue and happiness, Kant accepts two other postulates: the immortality of soul and existence of God. 

Ques.   According to Kant what are the essential conditions for morality?(June 2011 ,150 words)

Ans. In the realm of morality in contemporary western thought, Kant stands supreme. His ‘Critique of Practical Reason’ is the masterpiece in the field of ethics. According to him, there is nothing like ‘heteronomous’ norm in the field of morality. A person who rejects this norm then he may not be declared a moral person.  He says that there are some a-priori principles of speculative knowledge as well as similar principles of practical knowledge. These a-priori principles of speculative knowledge constitute the ‘autonomous principles’. 

                     For Kant “good will” is a will that wills nothing. It is not meant for the sake of any other thing but for itself. It is not relative to any other achievement. All other achievements are for the sake of some other things like, health, wealth, longevity etc.  All these are bad ends, according to Kant. ‘Good will’ is a duty which is for duty’s sake only. “Good will” does not act out of self-interest. This tough condition brought Kant the epithet of ‘rigorist’ and his philosophy is called ‘rigourism’.

                    

Good Will:  ‘Good will’ is good without any qualification.  It is good in itself not as a means to achieve something else.  So, it cannot be misused for other purposes.  Good will is mealy a duty for duty’s sake not for the sake of any beneficial results which may accrue from it. Reverence for the moral law is the reason for good will activities. Neither self-interest nor natural inclination is the driving force behind good will.  The only inspiration is the sense of duty for it.  Though he allows legitimate self-interest and good inclinations,  his only intention is to assert the importance of moral law as the source of moral obligation.  Moral obligation to moral law is the main feature of moral consciousness.

Deontology:  ‘Deontology’ is the word coined by British moralist Jeremy Bentham.  Derived from the Greek word, ‘deon’, it means that which is binding.  According to deontological ethics doing one’s duty is morally good. So, deontology may be defined as the science of moral duties.  It is different from ‘teleology’ in the sense that teleological approach decides the criterion of morality on the basis of this that , whether an action fulfils an end or not. (2011, 1oo words)

Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility:

Freedom of will is the criterion of moral responsibility.  It is the pre supposition of any moral act.  Though, ultimately it is a metaphysical question, its relevance to ethics cannot be denied.  If the doer is not free in choosing his options or left with no option at all, then there is no question of his being rewarded or punished for that work. In fact, the realm of morality will end with the end of the scope of freedom of will.

       The question of human freedom is related to the norm of morality.  Whether we should appreciate or criticize someone for his act will depend on, which normative theory, we are going to accept.  Whether it is teleological or deontological?

       Any meta-ethicist will ask the question that whether this term ‘right’ implies the term ‘free’ or not? For example, if someone commits murder under the circumstances of threat to his life and the term ‘wrong’ connotes free, then we cannot declare that the person in question has committed crime.  So, there will be a question of the meaning of the word freedom.Are human being morally free?

Determinism versus indeterminism

Though our subconscious plays a major role in our decision procedure yet by being determined we can overcome the influence of subconscious, as well.

Existentialist Humanism:

Jean Paul Sartre, an existentialist humanist tried to find out the solution for objective moral norm on the basis of ontology.  The crux of moral philosophy is the question: is there a same foundation - an objective reality – which does in fact serve as a basis, or foundation, for moral values irrespective of their divergence and variability? For Sartre, the objective foundation could only be a ‘realism of essences’ created by God.  But, according to him, God does not exist.

       He says that in the absence of any pre-existing essence, to build any moral order and also there is not any norm on the basis of which anybody can pass moral judgement, the very agent is free to create his own moral values.  Sartre is not against the universal form of ethics but he says that this universal form is based on human freedom itself.

 He says that while behaving freely by one’s own freedom, one should not ignore the freedom of others.  Since there does not exist any God to decide the norm, human person finds himself cursed to be free and thrown in this world of passion.  He is anguished by this freedom and disappointed to be free.

       But human person for itself is rather different from a thing. Human person is dynamic, undetermined and indefinable as opposed to the thing which is static, fixed, determined and definable. With some pre-existing norms to determine him, human person also would have been like thing and devoid of his dignity.  It is his existence as free being which makes his essence.  That’s why he says that existence precedes essence. It is possible for human person to proceed forward from his existing situation.  This is possible because of his being a conscience being.  The concept of God which includes both the ‘in-itself’ and ‘for itself’ is contradictory, according to Sartre.

       He says that, a person who does not   recognize his freedom and tries to find excuses for his decisions is a salaud (bastard).  According to critics, this freedom may lead to anarchism, is assessed from the practical point of view. 

LEVINAS’ PHILOSOPHY OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHERS

Levinas’ contribution in the domain of philosophy is to propound the  philosophy of the other and declaring ethics as the first philosophy  at the  cost of  ontology.  He is dead against the general conception of the individual described by ontology. He says that by classifying and categorizing someone, we miss the individuality in him. He says that Plato’s theory of recollection is detrimental for the otherness of the other. Merely to recall the concepts, whatever one already has, is to remain in one’s own world. 

                     Levinas is, also against Edmund Husserl for abolishing the otherness of others.  He is also opposed to Heideggar for his view about the relationship with other.  Heideggar has given the secondary state to the relationship with other, in comparison   to the relation with  ‘Being-in-general’. For Heidegger “the fear of dying is greater than that of being a murderer”. His prime matter of concern is his being. He is afraid of losing his existence. Nothing is more precious for him than his life, for which he should sacrifice it. It shows the egoism involved in existentialist thinkers. That is the only matter of concern for them.  For Heidegger, death indicates his individuality because of its being his own. While according to Levinas his relations with others individualizes him.  A human person’s existence and individuality is determined by responding   to the other in the uniqueness occasioned by the other. Men have to be responsible to others.

Questions of the unit:

Q1. What is ‘good will’ according to Kant?

Ans. Good Will:  ‘Good will’ is good without any qualification.  It is good in itself not as a means to achieve something else.  So, it cannot be misused for other purposes.  Good will is mealy a duty for duty’s sake not for the sake of any beneficial results which may accrue from it. Reverence for the moral law is the reason for good will activities. Neither self-interest nor natural inclination is the driving force behind good will.  The only inspiration is the sense of duty for it.  Though he allows legitimate self-interest and good inclinations,  his only intention is to assert the importance of moral law as the source of moral obligation.  Moral obligation to moral law is the main feature of moral consciousness.

Q2. Why does Kant call the moral law as the ‘Categorical Imperative’?

Ans. Not being meant for any other thing but for itself, it is called ‘categorical imperative’. Being rooted in the moral law, which is universal ‘good will’ is of universal appeal.  “I must act such that my way of acting could become a universal procedure” is the general formula for categorical imperative. Another important formula with universal appeal is, “never treat a person merely as a means”. Human freedom, immortality   of the soul and existence of God, are the three postulates derived by him, out of this categorical imperative. Though he had denied the knowability of these noumenal realities and never gave any proof for it, yet he accepted all these three as postulates of morality in the ‘Critique of Practical Reason’. According to him, all these three are beyond the realm of pure reason.  

Q3. According to Kant, ‘Is the practical synthetic a-priori imperative possible?

Ans. categorical imperative

Q4. What is determinism?

Q5. Give the importance of freedom in Sartre’s view.

Ans. Existentialist Humanism:

Jean Paul Sartre, an existentialist humanist tried to find out the solution for objective moral norm on the basis of ontology.  The crux of moral philosophy is the question: is there a same foundation - an objective reality – which does in fact serve as a basis, or foundation, for moral values irrespective of their divergence and variability? For Sartre, the objective foundation could only be a ‘realism of essences’ created by God.  But, according to him, God does not exist.

       He says that in the absence of any pre-existing essence, to build any moral order and also there is not any norm on the basis of which anybody can pass moral judgement, the very agent is free to create his own moral values.  Sartre is not against the universal form of ethics but he says that this universal form is based on human freedom itself.

 He says that while behaving freely by one’s own freedom, one should not ignore the freedom of others.  Since there does not exist any God to decide the norm, human person finds himself cursed to be free and thrown in this world of passion.  He is anguished by this freedom and disappointed to be free.

       But human person for itself is rather different from a thing. Human person is dynamic, undetermined and indefinable as opposed to the thing which is static, fixed, determined and definable. With some pre-existing norms to determine him, human person also would have been like thing and devoid of his dignity.  It is his existence as free being which makes his essence.  That’s why he says that existence precedes essence. It is possible for human person to proceed forward from his existing situation.  This is possible because of his being a conscience being.  The concept of God which includes both the ‘in-itself’ and ‘for itself’ is contradictory, according to Sartre.

       He says that, a person who does not   recognize his freedom and tries to find excuses for his decisions is a salaud (bastard).  According to critics, this freedom may lead to anarchism, is assessed from the practical point of view.