 In the previous clips, we talked about virtue ethics, which places great emphasis on a person's character and about utilitarian approaches which focus on costs and benefits. In this clip, we will introduce another paradigm, deontology. The term comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Accordingly, deontology is also referred to as duty ethics. In contrast to the approaches we discussed earlier, deontological approaches do not take into consideration the outcomes of an action. In deontology, one distinguishes the good from the right. Some actions might have a good outcome, but are nevertheless wrong. For example, one might envision a rule that killing someone is wrong. If a deontologist accepts this rule, killing a dictator to stop them from starting a war is as wrong as killing someone to steal their back. Whether an action has a good or a bad outcome is irrelevant in a deontological framework. The evaluation of an action is solely based on whether the agent acted according to their moral duties. This means that the agents intend to act according to their moral duties as a central role. For example, an intentional lie is not immoral because of the outcome, but because it is wrong in itself. In the words of Plaisons, one's intent then is the center of moral gravity in duty ethics, while then one's character via two ethics or the results of one's actions, consequentialist ethics. Some, but definitely not all, deontologists base deontological rules on a divine law. For example, a deontologist could argue that not working on Shabbat is right if you do so because you are following God's law that forbids you to do so. But wrong if you only do so because you are lazy. The fact that the outcome is identical is irrelevant. Others, however, argue that such rules are not given by some God but can be discovered by humans themselves as rational beings. This is what Immanuel Kant argues. Immanuel Kant is one of the most prominent proponents of deontological ethics. He is especially known for his categorical imperative. Imperative means that the rule is an order that must be followed. Categorical means that the rule is unconditional and must be obeyed in all circumstances. The categorical imperative has three different formulations. Let us consider the first, which is most widely known. Act only according to that maxim, that is a rule, whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Thus a law that is valid for everyone in every circumstance, without contradiction. In other words, when performing an action, you should ask yourself whether you would like the rule that you are following to be a universal rule that is valid for everyone. This might remind you of the Golden Rule. Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself. Or, treat others how you wish to be treated. The Golden Rule seems similar because it also sounds like a general rule to guide one's decisions. However, it differs because it is not universal. It does not imply that what one wants to happen to oneself is the same for everyone. Kant's explicit goal, in contrast, was to arrive at imperatives that are categorical. Do acts to others, without any further qualification. Interestingly, Kant claimed that duties could not be in conflict. Modern philosophers are often less strict about this and reject the idea that adhering to a duty, such as not lying, is always the right course of action. In Kant's example of not lying to a murderer, they would rank the duty to save someone's life higher than the duty to tell the truth. For example, W. D. Ross composed a list of duties which included honesty, fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, non-malofficience and self-improvement. However, in contrast to Kant, Ross acknowledged that these can be in conflict. Let us take the duty of fidelity. It implies that one has to keep promises. Another duty is non-malofficience, meaning that one should aim at minimizing harm to others. One can easily conceive of a situation in which keeping a promise made in the past could cause some harm now, because the circumstances under which the promise was made have changed. The ontological reasoning can provide a useful framework for media practitioners, as it allows the formulation of clear and accessible guidelines. But this comes at the price of having potentially conflicting duties. We will discuss some examples of such conflicts in the next clip.