Chapter 12 Deontology

Chapter 12 Deontology

For deontology the primary focus for ethical decision making is the rule. The rule to never lie, cheat, or steal is an absolute never to be broken under any circumstances for any reason. Immanuel Kant would argue that to break the rule would be to act contrary to reason; for Confucius to break the rule would be to act out against one's filial relationships and virtue, and for W. D Ross the rule may only be broken in order to uphold the more prima facia rule. Regardless of the deontological school of thought the rule is the guide.

This bring me to some important questions: why do the rules matter? Are we simply rational creatures born to keep rules? Should reason be our primary foundation for ethics, and if so, why? What role does our emotional nature play in ethical decision making? We see examples of rule based thinking in every sphere of life: religion, business, government, family. Here are some examples: If you smoke a cigarette you are going to hell, no shoes, no shirt, no service; pay taxes or go to jail, and bedtime is 8 pm.

Rules for rule sake:

The challenge with rule based thinking in ethics is the rule becomes the focus and not the object, meaning, reason, or value of the rule. The rule becomes supreme and so, the outcome produced, the individuals and communities that are impacted by them become only incidentals. It is then easy to become totalitarian, cruel, and indifferent to anyone and anything that contradicts the rule.

I think we can relate back to Kant's ideal, "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means". It is in this statement that we can find a corrective for becoming rule totalitarians. The rules are for people not the other way around. Jesus uses this logic when healing on the Sabbath. Jesus is accused of breaking God's command of not working on the Sabbath by healing the sick on the Sabbath. Jesus responds that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This puts the rule firmly in it's place by framing it in the context of human need and dignity. The person becomes the end not the rule.

This brings me to my next point. Ethics is a relational ideal and I agree in part with Kant that without reason, ethics would cease to be in this world , it is a human endeavor because humans are rational by nature and we utilize reason to communicate. By reason we can rationally conclude good from evil not simply by analytical, abstract conclusions, but how thoughts, words, and actions impact us individually, the people we love, and society in general. I believe that whatever ethical system we utilize, each ethical system is an endeavor to value that which is loved. Example: loving ourselves, loving others, loving nature and other creatures, knowledge, and innocence. The purpose of ethics is to love to the fullest measure. Through love we acknowledge our self-worth, the worth of others, and the goodness of being alive in a world full of beauty and mystery in which all creatures should be valued according to there nature. Ethics is a means to fulfilling the law of law.

Getting emotional:

Reason is foundational but there must be more to ethical decision making than 1 + 1 is 2. Humans are rational but we are also emotional beings. Sympathy, empathy, anger, and joy are fundamental to our psyche. Kant wanted to completely distinguish the rational (or good will) from the emotional in ethical decision making. Kant believed any emotive inclination towards a virtuous act was no longer virtuous, although "praiseworthy" and desirable, the act was only virtuous if done from pure reason or will. This is a problem for me because emotion is infused into our rational processes. When we think we feel, and when we feel we think. We are by nature emotive and rational and to ignore one over the other would be as dangerous as ignoring the physical heart over the brain.

A term being used today is emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence (EI) is a person’s ability to (1) be self-aware (to recognize her own emotions when she experiences them), (2) detect emotions in others, and (3) manage emotional cues and information. People who know their own emotions and are good at reading emotion cues—for instance, knowing why they’re angry and how to express themselves without violating norms—are most likely to be effective. (Dessler, 2011). This concept is used in business, but I believe is important to ethical decision making as well. Interesting, we can rationally judge and discover the who, what, and why of our emotional state. Reason should guide emotion. When we act out of emotion without reason we can make bad ethical choices. Have you heard the expression "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"? Also, we can be cruel when we divorce our feelings from reason, we can become rule totalitarians.

Confucius and Ancestors

For Confucius the rules were handed down by our ancestors and the rule was, honor the ancestors by keeping their rules. Not because the rules were what mattered but because we are to love our ancestors. Mo Tzu had seen the impact of rules on the Chinese rule based culture and attempted to use a utilitarian ethical philosophy to counter the negative impact of Confucian philosophy, but without much success. Authoritarian ancestry became a way of those in power through family ancestry to take advantage of the poor and powerless. The poor and powerless were then obligated to accept the injustice because of the Confucian rule based system. This allowed rule totalitarians to take advantage of Confucian ideals for their own benefit. Once again, love is reciprocal, and without reciprocity, we fail to truly love each other, or as Confucius might believe, we fail jen. Confucian ethics is possible if the ancestors rules are embedded in love for their offspring, and only then can the offspring truly love their ancestors.

Why Lie:

Warning: This is my opinion on lying and one I am still working through.

For Kant lying was an absolute unbreakable rule. There was no rational excuse for lying even to save an innocent life. So, according to Kant I must tell a vicious murderer the truth of where my family is hiding so he may or may not kill them. This is one of my biggest issues with Kant. It is at this point that I believe his deontological theory loses its roots, its value, and purpose. The purpose of ethics, in my opinion, is to love and value each human being (Kant would agree). By loving and valuing each other we build and maintain happy, strong and productive relationships and therefore maintain individual and social happiness.

When we lie we break trust between rational trusting individuals and societies. The deontological model for ethics is a powerful tool for decision making but only to the extent that we follow Kant's ideal that the person is the end not the rule. According to Kant when we lie we take control over another person. We dominate them through deceit and ignore their autonomy and thwart their right to honest choices. I would add to that yes we de-value them as individuals but we devalue our relationships too. Therefore lying in and of itself, outside of human interaction is meaningless. Lying is only an evil in as much as it destroys warranted trust. Lying is unethical because it destroys the integrity of healthy relationships and thwarts efforts to grow in love and communication to foster intimacy and friendship. I owe the truth to those I value and love and to those who value and love me.

There is a great proverb I think applies to what I am saying on the negative side of my ideal: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls to pigs because they will eat them up and then tear you to pieces". I do not owe what is holy (truth) to evil people when they intend to harm or kill me or my family and neighbor. There is no relational foundation upon which there is trust, friendship, or intimacy to violate with a cold blooded killer. There intent has already demolished my relational responsibility. To give the truth of the whereabouts of my family to a evil person to whom I have no relationship other than their unwarranted violence would be to devalue the trust, intimacy, and friendship I have spent a lifetime building with those to whom it is owed. I will have to violate the fundamental purpose of truth telling: valuing relationships, by divulging the truth to one with whom I have none. By giving what is holy to "dogs" or "pigs" I have capitulated that what I gave was not holy.

Truth is to build love, trust, intimacy, and friendship not to speak for in and of itself. This leads to rule totalitarianism.