Immanuel Kant's Deontology Definition:
In the 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment was in full swing. People were beginning to rely on the principles of natural law, which states that there is a right and a wrong and that we must use reason, or our sense of logic, to figure out the difference. During this time, a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant developed a branch of ethics that was solely based upon one's sense of duty to act in the way we see as right. Kant's deontology is guided by an individual's sense of morality, or what is right and what is wrong to us. Kant was a scientist and scholar whose books included works about science, morality, and history.
Kant's deontology, called deontological ethics, starts by acknowledging that actions and their outcomes are independent things. Sometimes, there are things that you have to do, even if you know they are wrong. According to deontology, you need to focus on the act, such as protecting your family, and not the likely death it will mean for the intruder.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
‘The end doesn’t justify the means.’
Deontological ethics state that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to a good outcome. The actions are not judged on their outcomes. Some actions may be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a positive outcome.
Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to ethics that imposes on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves. Hence, whether a situation is good or not, depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong.
What makes a choice 'right' is its conformity with an ethical norm: Right takes priority over Good.
Therefore principles rather than consequences should guide decision-making.
Kant’s - Moral Rules
The consequences of an action don’t make it right or wrong.
According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is set by the human will, which is the sole thing within the planet that can be considered good without qualification. Goodwill is exercised by acting consistent with moral duty/law. Moral law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical – we are bound by duty to act by Categorical Imperatives (CI).
For Kant, there is only one CI, but stated in 3 Maxims;
Categorical Imperatives (CI) are things you have to do all the time regardless of the circumstances. CI are moral obligations or commands that are unconditionally and universally binding.
Kant’s categorical imperative is composed of three so-called maxims that define these:
- Maxim 1: Principle of Universality ‘Act only by that
- Maxim (rule) that you wish or will to become a universal law’.
- Maxim 2: Principle of Humanity as an end ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only’.
- Maxim 3: Principle of Autonomy/Consistency ‘Do the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do’.
Deontological Ethics and Profit Maximization
According to a persistent ‘self-interest hypothesis’, businesses act purely out of self-interest in everything they do, because all that matters in the end, is profit maximization. We say that deontological ethics claims that it is not only your interests that matter but also the effects your actions have on the interests of others. Are ethics and business compatible, then? If one adheres to the self-interest hypothesis, the answer is no. However, this theory is not based on sound reasoning. The claim that entrepreneurs act purely out of self-interest cannot be falsified and therefore becomes meaningless. Even if a business spends hundreds of millions every year on charity, takes excellent care of its employees, and is a pioneer in the field of environmental policy, you could maintain that in the end it only does this for its benefit. However, a theory that makes itself immune to empirical refutation is unsound. It is rather an expression of belief or a statement based on hidden assumptions.
It might be closer to the truth to assume that businesses have mixed motives: they see their moral responsibilities within the perspectives of their business interests and define their business interest according to what is morally desirable. As a result, the sharp distinction between self-interest and ethics becomes blurred. It is about ‘profits and principles’. A business that regards deontological ethics in a purely instrumental way and feigns responsibility rather than embraces it, will fail sooner or later, if only because it fails to create support among its employees. Ethics and self-interest, then, might be different motives for a business’ actions, but they are not contradictory, in the sense that they are mutually exclusive. In practice self-interest and ethics often go hand in hand. One of the goals of business ethics is to give managers more insight into the positive connection between profits and ethics, so they can make better use of these in their work. This is good for business, good for them, and good for the society around them.
However, in the harsh reality of doing business, economic interests and the social impact of business can also be negatively correlated. Not everything that is morally right generates profits, and not everything profitable is morally right. Deontological ethics is not a set of restrictions; it is a window into the moral world of tomorrow and thus a source of business opportunities.
Profit maximization cannot be a fundamental principle in any meaningful ethical theory. Why?
The arguments put forth to justify a claim that organizations should act in the interest of their shareholders, thus do not hold up to closer scrutiny. Thus, these arguments do not immediately imply that an ethical point of view that includes profit maximization by firms is impossible to conceive of. In general terms, there are two ways in which to fit profit maximization into an ethical theory. One can that profit maximization is an important principle of the theory, from which other principles are derived. The other is to argue that profit maximization can be derived from some set of fundamental principles which constitute the ethical theory.
An ethical theory built around (or consistent with) the idea that organizations ought only to pursue the interests of their owners, would include a strong element of egoism on the part of owners (through the construct of a corporation). This could take two forms: i) The ethical theory could argue that owners should maximize their returns, while other agents (some or all) should not in a similar sense act in their self-interest, or ii) The ethical theory could argue that all workers should act in their self-interest.
An ethical theory based on (or including) a fundamental principle of profit maximization, is thus a non-starter. If profit maximization wants to be placed in an ethical perspective, then, it must be as a principle derived from (or permitted by) other fundamental principles. Within a basic consequentialist framework, one could for instance argue that it is for the best (however that may be defined) that organizations maximize profits. As Williams (1993:13) argues, the principle of self-interest can be supported more naturally. Similarly, within a deontological framework, profit maximization could be legitimate to the extent that it is consistent with the fundamental normative precepts for action.
If we accept that profit maximization is to be a derivative principle of an ethical theory, however, it can by implication no longer be an absolute guide of conduct for corporate executives. Knowing the imperfections of the world, there will be instances where the principle of profit maximization will have to be deviated from, for corporate action to fulfill the fundamental principles of the theory. For instance, within a consequentialist framework, it may be efficient for organizations to maximize profits and the government to take care of redistribution. This argument presupposes, however, that there exists some sort of government that can redistribute effectively, if there does not, the argument breaks down, and the best state of affairs is not necessarily attained by letting organizations increase profits. In an ethical theory where profit maximization is a derivative principle for corporate action, it will therefore be subject to exception, it will sometimes have to be deviated from to meet more fundamental ends.
Stuck on your essay?
