
Ethics Explainer: Deontology
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
BY The Ethics Centre 18 FEB 2016
Deontology is an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules.
Its name comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. Actions that align with these rules are ethical, while actions that don’t aren’t. This ethical theory is most closely associated with German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.
His work on personhood is an example of deontology in practice. Kant believed the ability to use reason was what defined a person.
From an ethical perspective, personhood creates a range of rights and obligations because every person has inherent dignity – something that is fundamental to and is held in equal measure by each and every person.
This dignity creates an ethical ‘line in the sand’ that prevents us from acting in certain ways either toward other people or toward ourselves (because we have dignity as well). Most importantly, Kant argues that we may never treat a person merely as a means to an end (never just as a resource or instrument).
Kant’s ethics isn’t the only example of deontology. Any system involving a clear set of rules is a form of deontology, which is why some people call it a “rule-based ethic”. The Ten Commandments is an example, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Most deontologists say there are two different kinds of ethical duties, perfect duties and imperfect duties. A perfect duty is inflexible. “Do not kill innocent people” is an example of a perfect duty. You can’t obey it a little bit – either you kill innocent people or you don’t. There’s no middle-ground.
Imperfect duties do allow for some middle ground. “Learn about the world around you” is an imperfect duty because we can all spend different amounts of time on education and each be fulfilling our obligation. How much we commit to imperfect duties is up to us.
Our reason for doing the right thing (which Kant called a maxim) is also important.
We should do our duty for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do.
Obeying the rules for self-interest, because it will lead to better consequences or even because it makes us happy is not, for deontologists, an ethical reason for acting. We should be motivated by our respect for the moral law itself.
Deontologists require us to follow universal rules we give to ourselves. These rules must be in accordance with reason – in particular, they must be logically consistent and not give rise to contradictions.
It’s worth mentioning that deontology is often seen as being strongly opposed to consequentialism. This is because in emphasising the intention to act in accordance with our duties, deontology believes the consequences of our actions have no ethical relevance at all – a similar sentiment to that captured in the phrase “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall”.
The appeal of deontology lies in its consistency. By applying ethical duties to all people in all situations the theory is readily applied to most practical situations. By focussing on a person’s intentions, it also places ethics entirely within our control – we can’t always control or predict the outcomes of our actions, but we are in complete control of our intentions.
Others criticise deontology for being inflexible. By ignoring what’s at stake in terms of consequences, some say it misses a serious element of ethical decision-making. De-emphasising consequences has other implications too – can it make us guilty of ‘crimes of omission’? Kant, for example, argued it would be unethical to lie about the location of our friend, even to a person trying to murder them! For many, this seems intuitively false.
One way of resolving this problem is through an idea called threshold deontology, which argues we should always obey the rules unless in an emergency situation, at which point we should revert to a consequentialist approach.
But is this a cop-out? How do we define ‘emergency’?
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
10 Comments
What ever the rules we follow, we have to be subjective to the truth as to perform Democrat rights except those whom does not inclined to Democracy government may defame the system.
ReplyConsidering that firstly the rules are made by trust worthy not for self gain type of people. We must obey the rules if they are set in place to be a service to us all. Only then should such rules be followed.
ReplyAs others have said, whether we must obey “the rules” # depends on who made them, for what purpose,0y, and whom the apply to. But I’ll limit my answe to rules I apply to myself and believe in to make me a good person, and think adjoins v apply to others. OK, then. Maybe I should call my position “muddy (or muddled) demonology. That is, there are laws, but circumstances alter cases. If the five people tied to the tracks were especially heinous criminals condemned to death by trolley, I’d run them over no matter which tracks they were tied to, even though I oppose capital punishment. (I don’t think the trolley problem works as stated, because it poses the problem as a choice between killing or not, when the data are going to happen anyway. “Not to decide is to decide,” — a 60s meme. I also believe in Vincente circles of obligation, like Arab saying, Me against my brother, me and my brother against our family, our family against our tribe, our tribe against thev world.” If my daughter were tied to b the tracks, I’d choose to save her. (Usually!) I also think we need an idea of “moral cost” — how much will this moral deviation hurt me? (Killing someone to harvest her organs to save five lives should have a moral cost to the person in a position to do it.)
So what’s the”law” to apply before an action?
Check how much time you have.
Consider consequences, moral cost, your closeness to the situation, and the “universal moral law,” then … act.
If we considered the Ten Commandments as “rules” then it does simplify things. Take the “thou shall not kill” rule. If this was absolute, and the entire world obeyed it, then there would be no purpose in war … you can’t kill anything so what would be the point? Or abortion. Our entire focus would move from should she keep or kill her baby to “how can we support her financially and emotionally so both mum and baby can thrive?” Or euthenasia? What can we do to ensure this person lives out the remainder of their lives pain free, and still with purpose? Great love can still be given and received from a wheel-chair or bed. It’s a completely different conversation when the question of whether to kill or not to kill is removed.
ReplyI would say YES! if the rule is made by yourself for the betterment of others. It would definitely take care of you. In my opinion, by making self rules, it would always include discipline and unselfishness.
ReplyWe have to make differences between different kinds of the ruling structure if it is authoritarian then we have no option but obey the rules, In the Democratic structure, people have the power to resist against the arbitrary rules made by govt Yes, we have to follow them(rules) up to a level not always in any situations and circumstances…
ReplyI have a little bit of a sticky situation. In the Trolley Experiment, I would definitely take out one person to save more (5) lives. The problem for me comes from the next example. If the one person was my daddy, I would then take 5 lives over 1.
The shortcomings arise from people like me who somewhat straddle the fence between Deontology and Consequentialism. So, no. they aren’t mutually excluded.I would feel very guilty, and probably am guilty for selecting my father over the 5, but when you add love, the situation can get kind of blurry.
ReplyThank you for sharing Stephanie. The human experience is complex indeed, and your explanation illustrates that!
Reply
Join the conversation
Should we always live by the rules?