I’m back! I hope you all enjoyed my previous post on utilitarianism, and I wanted to make the next ethical school of thought in my mini-series Deontology, otherwise known as Kantian Ethics.

Let’s follow the last post’s structure, shall we?

Deontology was created by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who lived 1724-1804.

Deontology is a tiny bit more complicated than utilitarianism, but overall it’s still pretty simple – here’s the overview:

Deontology “does not depend exclusively on the consequences of an action to determine its morality.”

There are, like with any ethical school of thought, different degrees:

• Extreme deontology: consequences of an action are not considered at all
• Moderate deontology: consequences of an action have merit, but other considerations must be judged upon

Immanuel Kant stated deontology in two different ways. These definitions are now known as Kant’s categorical imperative.

Categorical Imperative

1. “Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” – i.e. Are you okay with your action becoming a law that everyone must follow?
2. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” – i.e. People deserve respect (this wording is most often applied in medicine). People can use others as a means to an end (ex. A doctor treating a patient to get paid) but not only as a means. The doctor must also intend to care for/benefit the patient (treating the patient as an end).

Diving a tad bit deeper into the rabbit hole of the categorical imperative, here’s what it actually means:

• Categorical: without exception (i.e., “Chocolate is categorically delicious”)

• Imperative: an obligatory act or duty (i.e., “We have a moral imperative to save the planet”)

And here is our return of the table! Strengths and weaknesses of Deontology:

Deontology/Kantian Ethics – Immanuel Kant
Strengths	– Consistency – Clear framework for how to behave and make decisions (but only for an individual, cannot be scaled to a group setting) – Straightforward steps to execute → easy step-by-step
Weaknesses	– Every culture has a different moral school of thought, so the universal application is impractical – Individuals have different perspectives and biases  – Good intent does not justify the outcome – Does not help an individual cope with the consequences of their actions

Hope you learned something new, and thanks for reading!