Focuses on Intentions. According to McNaughton and Rawling (2007), deontology highly values the motivations behind deeds. It claims that deeds done out of obligation or benevolence have inherent moral value, regardless of the results. This focus on good intentions encourages ethically admirable actions.
Clarity in Moral Decision-Making. Conway and Gawronski (2013) note that deontological principles offer precise standards for moral judgments. This clarity reduces ambiguity and provides a disciplined framework for action, assisting people in making consistent ethical decisions across various circumstances.
Respect for Individual Rights. According to Altman & Heath Wellman (2008), individual rights and human dignity are highly valued in deontology. It highlights the inherent value of people and advocates for acts that protect and honor these rights, covering them from utilitarian calculations that could jeopardize them in the name of the greater good.
Universal Applicability of Moral Principles. Alexander and Moore (2007) note that deontological ethics seeks to apply moral principles to all situations, everywhere. Behaving honorably and truthfully are two widely recognized principles that work in all cases and cultures.
Defence Against Moral Trade-Offs. According to Menzel & Wiek (2009), deontology prevents giving up particular moral precepts or individual liberties to maximize utility or general enjoyment. It establishes clear guidelines to avoid sacrificing some ethical principles for progress.
Stability in Ethical Decision-Making. Place (2010) purports that deontological ethics can offer a stable basis for decision-making when outcomes are unclear or when moral standards clash. It provides unambiguous, unwavering guidelines for behavior.
Promotion of Moral Integrity. According to Nieuwenburg (2017), we learn that deontology promotes moral integrity and a sense of personal accountability by encouraging people to act in line with their ethical duties and ideals.
Ethical Guidelines in Professions and Institutions. According to Ikuenobe (2018), we understand that Ethical codes in various professions and institutions are frequently based on deontological principles. With the help of these codes, practitioners can make decisions and behave in a more organized manner.
Objectivity and Consistency. According to Alexander and Moore (2007), deontology encourages moral consistency based on objective standards instead of arbitrary results judgments. The focus on immutable ethical principles promotes moral character and integrity in decisions.
Respect for Human Dignity in Conflicting Situations. According to Sourlas (2015), Deontological ethics maintains people’s inherent value and dignity, even in tough decisions. With the support of this framework, people are guaranteed to be respected for who they are and not just as a means to an end.
Moral Boundaries and Preventing Ethical Erosion. According to Bartling & Özdemir (2023), deontology upholds moral boundaries by establishing some actions as intrinsically immoral. It ensures a solid moral foundation by preventing ethical erosion, which occurs when seemingly small transgressions escalate into larger ethical violations.
Cultural and Universal Applicability. We learn that according to Demuijnck (2014). Moral laws or universally applicable principles are frequently the foundation of deontological principles, which transcend cultural boundaries. This universality allows the creation of a framework that works in various settings and societies.
Individual Accountability and Responsibility. Alexander and Moore (2007), deontology encourages people to accept accountability for their actions by emphasizing adherence to moral duties and principles. This feeling of personal responsibility may strengthen one’s resolve to act morally.
Minimization of Unintended Consequences. According to Chatterjee et al. (2009), deontology seeks to reduce unintended negative consequences that may result from giving certain outcomes precedence over ethical principles by emphasizing the morality of actions rather than their outcomes.
Disadvantages of Deontological Ethics
Rigidity and Inflexibility. According to Cornelius (2002), deontology is predicated on unchangeable laws or values, which can result in unbending moral standards. Strict adherence to these guidelines occasionally might miss the subtleties of specific circumstances, leading to morally dubious choices.
Conflict between Moral Duties. According to Tseng & Wang (2021), there may be conflicts between moral obligations, leading to ethical problems in which upholding one responsibility may put another in jeopardy. For example, there may be a conflict between the duty of honesty and the commitment to keep someone safe, which makes decision-making difficult.
Limited Guidance in Complex Situations. According to Miner & Petocz (2003), deontological ethics may find it difficult to offer clear guidance When morally complex or ambiguous circumstances arise, such as competing moral principles at play or uncertain consequences. This rigidity can be problematic when dealing with ethical problems in the real world.
Subjectivity in the Identification of Moral Duties. According to Davis, Nancy (1993), deciding which moral precepts or laws should apply in particular circumstances can be subjective. Divergent perspectives on moral obligations may result in differing judgments of what is ethically correct.
Lack of Consideration for Results. According to Akaah (1997), deontology considers the morality of deeds and themselves, not the results. It could result in ethically difficult situations where actions deemed morally acceptable according to the rules have morally undesirable outcomes.
Difficulty in Resolving Conflicting Duties. According to Białek and De Neys (2016), Deontological ethics may not always provide a clear way to resolve moral conflicts involving competing duties or principles. Due to this, people might become unsure about the ethically right thing to do.
Lack of Flexibility in Moral Progress. According to Davis and Nancy (1993), deontology’s inflexible rules may make it difficult to adjust to evolving moral standards or societal norms. It might not be easy to effectively handle new ethical challenges or adapt to changing ethical standards, especially in circumstances with rigid rules that limit flexibility.
Incapacity to Handle Consequentialist Concerns. According to Miner & Petocz (2003), deontology’s detractors contend that it may not sufficiently handle circumstances in which taking consequences into account is essential, which could result in morally deficient choices in situations where outcomes are highly significant.
Limited Guidance in Novel or Unforeseen Scenarios. According to Flinders (1992b), deontology may lack guidance in completely novel or unheard-of ethical circumstances where accepted norms or principles don’t hold. It may lead to doubt and moral ambiguity.
Moral Dogmatism and Ethical Absolutism. According to Surprenant (2010), it is evident that Deontological ethics can occasionally result in ethical absolutism, characterized by strict and dogmatic adherence to the law. It could make it more difficult to consider different ethical viewpoints or adjust to new moral realizations.
Difficulty in Handling Contextual Specificity. According to Miner & Petocz (2003), Deontological principles may fall short in considering how context affects moral judgments. They might undervalue contextual elements that greatly influence how ethically sound a course of action is.
Possibility of Moral Justification of Harmful Action. According to Gamez-Djokic and Molden (2016), deontology may occasionally unintentionally justify harmful actions if people follow the prescribed rules or duties. It might become an issue if moral absolutism ignores how serious the harm is.
Difficulties in Handling Conflicting or Overlapping Duties. According to Schwartz & Carroll (2003), Deontological ethics may find it difficult to provide workable solutions in conflicting or overlapping duties. Moral problems where it’s unclear what is right or wrong to do can result from this.
Insufficient Examining of Consequences in Moral Evaluation. According to Holyoak and Powell (2016), if consequences are not considered when evaluating morality, there may be circumstances in which following the rules takes precedence over morally better options, leading to less-than-ideal moral choices.
References
McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (2007). Deontology. In Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.003.0016
Akaah, I. P. (1997). Influence of Deontological and Teleological Factors on Research Ethics Evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 39(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(96)00143-9
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007). Deontological Ethics. Plato.stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/ethics-deontological/
Altman, A., & Heath Wellman, c. (2008). The Deontological Defense of Democracy: An Argument From Group Rights. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.2008.00321.x
Bartling, B., & Özdemir, Y. (2023). The limits to moral erosion in markets: Social norms and the replacement excuse. Games and Economic Behavior, 138, 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2022.12.001
Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Fuller, M. (2009). A Deontological Approach to Designing Ethical Collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 138–169. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00190
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
Cornelius, T. (2002). Application and Implications of Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism for Medical Practice. Changing Health Care Systems from Ethical, Economic, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-46846-8_9
Ikuenobe, P. (2018). Human rights, personhood, dignity, and African communalism. Journal of Human Rights, 17(5), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2018.1533455
Menzel, S., & Wiek, A. (2009). Deontological stances and intuition’s role in Valuation in morally charged situations: Deontological stances and intuition’s role in trade-off making. Ecological Economics, 68(8-9), 2198–2206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.012
Miner, M., & Petocz, A. (2003). Moral theory in ethical decision making: Problems, clarifications and recommendations from a psychological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021654015232
Nieuwenburg, P. (2017). The Integrity Paradox. Public Integrity, 9(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2753/pin1099-9922090301
Place, K. R. (2010). A Qualitative Examination of Public Relations Practitioner Ethical Decision Making and the Deontological Theory of Ethical Issues Management. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(3), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2010.497405
Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(04), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313435
Sourlas, P. (2015). Human Dignity and the Constitution. Jurisprudence, 7(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2015.1066556
Surprenant, C. W. (2010). Kant’s contribution to moral education: the relevance of catechistics. Journal of Moral Education, 39(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057241003754898
Tseng, P.-E., & Wang, Y.-H. (2021). Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168565
Davis, Nancy (1993). Contemporary deontology. In Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
Białek, M., & De Neys, W. (2016). Conflict detection during moral decision-making: evidence for deontic reasoners’ utilitarian sensitivity. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1156118
Flinders, D. J. (1992b). In search of ethical guidance: constructing a basis for dialogue1. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839920050202
Holyoak, K. J., & Powell, D. (2016). Deontological coherence: A framework for commonsense moral reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1179–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000075
Gamez-Djokic, M., & Molden, D. (2016). Beyond Affective Influences on Deontological Moral Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1522–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665094
write