Perspective Paper

DEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

“To gain a sense of why it is important to subject morality to philosophical inquiry, we should view morality, not as a collection of rules, but as a set of guidelines that we must apply to the very complex circumstances of our lives.” (Furrow, 2005)As such, each of the theories discussed in CRJU 250 have their strengths and weaknesses, and serve as base – not an absolute - for resolving ethical dilemma. There does not appear to be one all-inclusive theory of moral reasoning.

Deontologists believe that one’s action must conform to recognized duties, the consequences are not important. By conforming, one is “doing the right thing” not because it solely pleases the individual or promotes good consequences, but rather because the individual is adhering to the concepts of duty, obligation and rationality. The deontological perspective allows for one’s intentions/motives to be valued, regardless of the outcome.

Deontologists also believe that all people are worthy of equal respect; humans have worth thus one cannot treat another human as an instrument to promote a common good. As such this theory demands one must treat all people as an ends, not a means – this is in contrast to Consequentialism.

Lastly, Deontologists believe that moral reasoning should be consistent, and adhering to duties and obligations should not be left to personal choice/preferences. As one decides how to act; one should question if one wants other rational beings to act in the same way, every time, all of the time. For if one treats people differently (based on bias and preference) there is the risk for injustice and unfairness. These unchanging laws for human conduct are the categorical imperatives1.

Main theorist: Immanuel Kant

PROBLEMS – This perspective is not without criticisms. The four main criticisms are as follows: (1) Minimal guidance or advice is provided on how to resolve conflicting duties. The decision-maker is instructed to find an overriding/more important duty; however if one is not found, there is no further instruction. (2) One can fulfill one’s duty/obligation and still not be a good person. (3) If one ignores consequences, there is the potential for pain and suffering. (4) History has shown that imposing one’s moral belief system on others can be oppressive and disvaluing of diverse beliefs.

Steps (adapted from Banks, 2009)

1. Select the option for how one will act in the situation.

2. Determine what is/are the underlying intentions of the act

3. Determine what are the duties involved in this situation and to whom or what? (If the duties conflicts determine if there is an overriding/more important duty? If there is not an overriding duty, proceed and see if the ethicality is determined in the following steps.)

4. Ask self: “Will this act show respect for the human dignity of everyone involved?”

5. Ask self: “Will it use any person as a means to an end?”

6. Ask self: “Can I will this act onto everyone?”

7. If you are fulfilling your duty(ies) and you answered Yes to items #4 & #6, and No to item #5. Then it is ethical.

REFERENCES

Banks, C. (2009). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New York: Continuum Books.

Unknown author. (No date). Terms In and Types of Ethical Theory. Drexel University. Retrieved June 14, 2010 from http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~cp28/ethterm.htm.

1 There are several branches of deontological: absolute (no exceptions) prima facie (overriding by more important duty) conditional (depends on circumstance).