 Hello, everyone. Today, we are going to talk about Deontological Ethics. Let me do a brief recapitulation of what we have talked about till now. We have talked about various moral theories. We have talked about consequentialism as a classification of moral theories, non-consequentialism as a classification of moral theories. We have talked about various consequentialist theories, which include utilitarianism, hedonism and altruism. Now, today, we are going to talk about something which philosophers called Deontological Ethics. Now, Deontological Ethics by itself is starkly different, in fact, contradictory to what is meant by consequential or teleological ethics. Deontological Ethics claims that moral rules are fundamental, that moral notions are fundamental and to understand the moral concept, one need not understand it in terms of non-moral concepts or non-moral consequences. Let us look at the slide. Now, can the prevailing rules and customs be the standard of morality? Well, as a beginner or as an entrant into the society, let us postulate. Well, we find that there are certain rules and customs that prevail in the society. There are certain rules and customs that prevail in the society. Now, can these be the standard? Well, perhaps most of us would answer, no, we require a change. Is this the second bullet reads that, is this a justification from the present? Things ought to be how they are and what exists is the model of existence. Now, when we are talking about moral rules, we are talking about something fundamental. How do we arrive at these moral rules is the immediate fused question with it, but for the sake of philosophical clarity, we shall distinguish between the rules, source and how do we arrive at it. So, the moral philosopher now looks for guidelines or norms for establishing a moral framework. Could it be rules or attitudes or goals or what else? What is the frame of reference of this moral framework that the philosopher seeks to establish? Well, till now we have been talking about consequentialism which has made consequences the frame of reference. Now, rules is a term we often hear in a moral discussion or let us now explore rules as a construct for morality, its basis and its justifications. Let us start with the classification of moral theories, teleological and deontological. Now, what are teleological theories? A teleological theory says that the basic or ultimate criteria or standard of what is morally right, wrong, obligatory etcetera is the non moral value that is brought into being. Teleologists may variously describe or define the non moral good, but what is essential about all these descriptions or definitions is that the good is non moral. Moral good and can only be understood teleological theories. A teleological theory says that the basic or ultimate criteria or standard of what is morally right, wrong, obligatory etcetera is the non moral value that is brought into being. Now, we have been talking about moral values and consequentialism and utilitarianism as also this is a continue to with it this talks about teleological values that any moral concept can be understood in terms of its non moral consequences. So, these claims of right, wrong, obligations and are determined only by the non moral consequences that they bring along. So, what teleology is making here a fundamental assumption is that well moral notions are not fundamental or atomic moral notions can be understood or further reduced to non moral notions and there of they can be understood. Now, coming back to the slide. Teleologists may variously describe or define the non moral good, but what is essential about all these descriptions or definitions is that the good is non moral. Moral good can only be understood in terms of the non moral good. Well for the utilitarian too the moral good can only be understood in the terms of non moral good. Moral good by itself is not fundamental. Teleologists have often although not always been hedonists identifying the good with pleasure and evil with pain, both pleasure and pain being natural concepts. Here the moral good is grounded or has its foundations on the non moral good, but let me pose this question to you. Can it be otherwise? Can the moral good be fundamental without being grounded on the non moral good? Now, before we talk about this last question that I posed with you. Let us briefly refer to the types of teleological theories. Teleologies differ on the question of whose good it is that one ought to try to promote. Ethical egoism holds that one is always to do what will promote his own greatest good. Utilitarianism holds that one is always to do what will promote the greatest good of the greatest number. Ethical altruism holds that one is always to do what will promote the good of other people. Now, notice here that while all the above theories differ in their description of their ultimate good, they stand united on the non moralness of their ultimate good. So, be it one's own self, be it the greatest number or be it others. The difference between the three theories is in the spread of the agency, but what is common is that the good. The good here, the good here and the good here are non moral goods. Now, this was a little bit about teleological theories. Now, let us look at deontological theories. Deontological theories contradict or deny what the teleological theories claim. Deontological theories of morality accord the moral property of actions as frequently or many times independent of the non moral consequence they bring along. Simply put, deontological theories hold that there are fundamental moral claims that do not gain their justification by non moral consequences. So, what is essentially the claim here is that a moral claim cannot be reduced or understood in terms of non moral goods. Now, for instance certain commitments like keeping one's commitment certain oaths or not indulging in unprovoked violence or not gambling can be examples of deontological claims when they are prescribed irrespective of the non moral consequences that they might bring along. Now, let us consider what the deontologist is trying to say. The deontologist is trying to say that well, we have assigned moral adjectives as good and bad, but on what basis do we have these classifications. We have these classifications on the basis of the result or the non moral consequence or good that comes along with an act. So, the teleologist does not find moral qualities as fundamental, but the deontologist does find it as fundamental that well, suppose someone says that I will not gamble. Now, this is an oath or this is a rule that one commits to by oneself. Even if sometimes the agent is clear that if she or he indulges in gambling, it will bring him enormous profits without any losses for sure. Yet, once he has taken an oath, it is a duty that he has chosen or she has chosen to impose on himself or herself. Now, this is what the deontologist is saying that well, that some moral notions are atomic and fundamental. We need not or we cannot find its justification from it resulting in non moral goods or consequences. Now, let us take a look at the next slide. Let us look at the differences between teleological theories and deontological theories. This differentiation and elaboration on teleological theories puts deontological theories in proper perspective. Well, as we definitionally the first point that a moral good is good only because it brings about a non moral good. Whereas, deontological theories claim that there can be moral goods that are good irrespective of the non moral consequences that they bring about. So, the key word here is irrespective that it is about the relationship between the moral good and the non moral good. Teleological theories say that there is a direct relation whereas, here is where there is a difference between the two theories. Now, second and remarkably a more subtle point of distinction is that teleological theories assume that there is only one basic or ultimate right making characteristic namely the comparative non moral value. Deontological theories assume that there may be many basic or ultimate right making characteristics. There is only one basic or ultimate right making characteristic. Now, what is the difference? Now, the crucial difference between the teleologists and the deontologists is coming out to be the number of foundations or stilts on which the moral domain stands. Now, the teleologist is simplistic, has only one highest common factor which is determinant of moral act. So, that highest common factor is given by the non moral good that comes along with an act. Whereas, now the deontologist on the other hand does not have a single moral good that way he can have various goods that there may be various right making characteristics of each of them being fundamental. So, deontologists refer to many fundamentals whereas, teleologists refer to only one basic classification. So, the teleologist is actually simplifying the moral frame of reference by bringing in the assumption that every pleasure can have a certain common factor that there can be in spite of the enormous differences in pleasures in goods moral goods. There is one common factor which is the non moral good which is common to all the moral goods and it is in terms of this non moral good that the moral goods can be understood. Now, coming back to the next slide, we need to talk about act deontological theories. Now, having means efficiently clear about what deontological theories claim. Let us say, let us explore what are the types of deontological theories. . Particular judgments are basic and any general rules are to be derived from them not the other way round. Approach to a moral problem, first we clear about the facts and then form a judgment either by intuition as intuitionist claim or by decision as the existentialist claim. Precursor to a moral sense or a moral faculty or intuition. General rules are built from these intuited decided particular cases and not the other way round. Primacy to particular judgments, particular judgments are not instances of a general moral rule. Is each situation unique that no theorization is possible. Now, let us look about in perspective what the act deontological theories say. The act deontologist is trying to put forth that well there are no particular no general rules about morality. In fact, it is with each particular situation that we come to know what is good and what is not good. That we know are moral adjectives from each particular situation and whatever rules that we have are a generalization from these particulars. It is not that the rules are primary and that the instances are inferred or arrived at from these general rule. The general rule is not given prior to the particulars. In fact, the act deontologist celebrates particulars and finds the particulars as the foundation of the generalization that takes place. So, one cannot commit or one cannot hold the general rule or any generalization as a more fundamental situation or position than explaining or understanding the particulars. Now, taking a look at back at the slide, we see that well in this case then if we agree that general rules are to be derived from the particulars and not the other way round how do we solve or how are particular problems solved. This is a natural question that comes to us. Well, this is the approach to a moral problem. The particular problem is solved first by being clear about the facts and then form a judgment either by intuition or by decision. Now, it is here that the act deontologist starts running into rough weather that perhaps he is putting the cart before the horse, because well what other deontologist would say that well what the act deontologist calls intuition or decision is nothing but a generalization that has or a general theory that has existed in the agent's psyche. Well, but if they are to be if the act deontologists are to be honored, they would hold that well intuition is something fundamental and this lays a precursor to a moral sense or a moral faculty or intuition. Now, general rules are built from these intuited decided particular cases not the other way round. The primacy to particular judgments particular judgments are not instances of a general moral rule. Now, I leave it with you to decide that is such a thing possible is each situation having so many of its particularities that no theorization is possible. Now, let us look at rule deontological theories. There is a non-teleological standard of one or more rules though these need not be the prevailing ones. What author of the referred book Ethics by William Francona is saying and as displayed on from page number 25 that there is a non-teleological standard consisting of one or more rules though these need not be the prevailing ones. So, Francona's claim is that well there is a rule governs standard, but of course we need not hold that the current rules are the epitome of rules to be made, but that there are rules are possible that there are certain rules that are to be followed no matter what the non-moral consequence of the rule following is indifferent to the moral justification of the rule. So, there is something about this rule which is to be followed no matter what and that the non-moral consequence of the rule following is indifferent far from being a justification to the moral justification of the rule. Such rules are intrinsically valued that is valued for its own sake and not for any consequence. Now, let us talk about what these rule deontologists are saying well the rule deontologists are saying that well there are rules which are fundamental and with which the moral explanation ends that seek no justification from the consequence that or the non-moral consequences or non-moral features surrounding this notion. The rule deontologists would say that the rule may not be the once it may not be the rules or the moral dictates or rules that we are talking about which are in prevalence today, but that in principle a rule is possible which is a fundamental display of the moral notion. Now, they call these rules as intrinsically valuable these rules which are valuable for themselves and are completely indifferent to what they bring about. Now, let us think of it are there some problems with these kind of rules based system. Now, please keep in mind that we are not talking about the content of any rule. We are talking about generic problems or solutions that are that occur with a general rule following tendency or a rule following attitude. Now, if rules are taken as fundamental and their justification. So, rules become the governing blocks. A classical example would be say the divine command theory as it is known that is rules are to be followed or to be obeyed as divine commands or that the divine commands are rules which are worth being followed irrespective of the consequences they bring along. Now, what about exceptions to rules? Now, rule deontology would say that there would be no exceptions to the rules that the rules are to be followed and not with the utilitarian justification. Let me make clear the difference between rule utilitarianism and rule deontology. Rule utilitarianism justify the rules from a long term benefit or a long term advantage that comes along as a consequence, but rule deontologists find justification of the rules in themselves that they are that the rules themselves are displays of foundation blocks of morality. So, there is the crucial difference between rule consequentialists or rule utilitarians and rule deontologists. Now, some of the problems that we face could be at right at the beginning level that well isn't too much of rule following going to hamper or disrespect our agency as human agents above in particular situations then it just becomes a mechanical application of rule say if there is a rule like thou shall not lie or thou shall not steal then well I just have to be clear about if I am a rule governing rule following person then I just have to be clear that well this is a lie and I shall not utter it. So, sometimes when I utter a lie for the greater good it would simply be wrong because it is a violation of rule. So, does rules or capture or moral canvas well another difficulty with rules that we find is that what if there are a conflict between rules now each of these rules are given a fundamental status. Now, what if there is a conflict between these rules now I see that well there is a philosopher called William D. Ross which we will be talking about now Ross tries to explain away this these difficulties by maintaining a hierarchy in the rules to be followed we will talk about it when we talk in detail. Now, the next theory that we talk about would be Kant's moral theory and we will also be talking about Ross ethical rules the divine command theory is also an example of rule deontology. Now, Immanuel Kant's moral theory a paradigm case of rule deontology. Now, let me introduce Immanuel Kant to you now Immanuel Kant is a profound philosopher of the modern days Kant has very significant contribution to philosophy and philosophy of morals the entire tradition of rationalism in morality owes its credit in the modern era to Immanuel Kant. Now, Kant was let me share some interesting biographic details of Kant. Now, Kant was living in a town and he spent his entire life in his town feeling never the need to leave the town as a ever also he was so regular it is said that he was so regular about his works that people in the streets could time their clocks or watches depending on the position where Kant was in this time of the day. So, Kant has been a phenomenal figure in the modern day philosophy and we have taken we will be only slightly moderately discussing Kant's moral theory because by itself it is an enormous area which perhaps took him more than decade to come up with and it still takes scholars a lot of time to comprehend Kant's theory in its totality. Now, let us come back to the slide what are Kant's objectives. Now, Kant wants to find a rational grounding for the moral domain and the moral domain constitutes one's senses of duty in different to the consequences. Now, let us look at this Kant was in a time when the hold of religion in day to day life in modern day world was quite high Kant wanted to also saw that well the prevailing rules customs and morality where some things perhaps he could not agree in totality with he wanted to make moral philosophy independent of the empirical sources evidences that come along with moral philosophy. So, Kant's great effort was to make moral philosophy grounded on rationality and reason now that seems to be alarming how can something like values something like right and wrong have anything to do with rationality or reason perhaps at the face we find that they are too contradictory or opposing or two fields which have nothing to do with each other. Now, Kant tries to well find that foundation when we are all looking for frame of references to build a moral framework Kant's find it Kant finds it in rationalism. His understanding is that by virtue of being rational beings we become moral beings and the moral call is binding and self-imposed. He does not start with the freedom of the will instead puts forth that we experience moral choice and therefore we are free. Kant discards empirical evidence practices as a ground for morality and ought or normative claim can never be logically arrived at from an is or a factual claim. Now, what is Kant saying Kant is saying that well by virtue of being a moral of being moral being that we are having the ability to make moral choices this gives us the justification that we have free will because in most of the philosophies that we would come across we would assume free will to arrive at moral choice that free will as a necessary condition to arrive at moral choice rather Kant puts it the other way around that we experience moral choice is fundamental and is an evidence of their being free will. So, Kant tries has laid such great importance on free will on and moral choice. Now, Kant looking at the slide Kant discards empirical evidences practices as a ground for morality. So, remember we are talking about Kant trying to stay away from the contamination of the unreliable empirical evidence and practices as a ground for morality. What Kant also was greatly influenced by was this philosopher called David Hume who showed that well we cannot infer we cannot logically arrive at an ought claim from an is claim. If you remember an ought claim was something we arrived at as a normative claim and is claim is a factual claim. So, well the standard way we approach morality is well that this is the way this is the way things are and so this is how it should be well philosophically there is a big divide between how things are and how things should be and it does not take too much of reflection to find out that there is no logical way perhaps of inferring what is what an ought is from an is. Look at the world around now if we have a description of affairs if there is corruption all around us does that mean that is how things ought to be definitely not. So, how things are do not give a ground for prescription or to bring about how things should be Kant takes this very seriously and therefore tries to cleanse his moral philosophy of all empirical content. So, in fact Kant's moral philosophy is empty in a nature that it gives you a format a structure it does not give you the content of the moral claim it gives you a formula it gives you a structure by which one should arrive at what is the what is morally sound. Now, with this we will start discussing the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant in detail.