Deontology | Ethics Defined

© 2017 The University of Texas at Austin. All Rights Reserved.

[smsakib]

two minutes were more effective than the
1-hour lecture at my university.

[billyvalentine]

Jesus. Thank you. Why can't educators be this simple and direct instead of convoluting everything in order to appear intelligent?

[silentdrowning]

This is a problematic definition. Nice attempt though, but it needs a slightly larger discussion to be adequate.
The consideration on consequences is built into the universal moral assumptions, deontology absolves consequences, involving suffering or any other competing moral dilemmas, by a reasoning through a moral heirarchy.

[raindropsofsky]

I will not violate ethics, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, human rights, protocols, table manners and any other legal bodies.

[nitish]

simple and easy to understand...grt job

[Defenestration_of_Prague]

Okay, idk if anyone knows Run the Jewels, but...is there song “Lie, Cheat, Steal” a reference to Emmanuel Kant??

[jrich]

Thank you, I think this will help with my business ethics assignment.

[reallifefaith]

This isn't really accurate. Deontology does not release one from decision-making and interpretation. Applying, for instance, Kant's imperative requires one to consider what behavior one would want to be universalized. In the same way, following religious maxims is never free from interpretation and application.

[EpicBeard]

great explanation, but conflating the ethical imperative of deontology with professional expectations is a bit disingenuous.

[brandonbrown]

I think "do not kill" should be added into these rules, if they haven't already. Which, in a perfect world, there would be 0 reason to lie in the example given, if the other party did not kill(launch a nuclear missle) and if that was the case, and this was a perfect world, then we wouldnt come in contact with these rules. If the rules were "do not kill, do not lie, etc." Then that wouldn't happen if everyone followed those rules. The fact is, it's not a perfect world, and people step out this "moral code" which in turn, I think, would require the other party to step outside the rules.
Small example: if the rule was to fight with paper swords, but someone brings a metal sword out, and you must fight, then you too would have to bring out a metal sword, regardless of the rules.

[ItHadToBeSaid]

Sounds like a very weak ethical practice. "Just follow the rules" NO. QUESTION the rules and the ppl and the institutions making and enforcing the rules.

[dannat.]

Very understandable explanation!!! 💯❤️

[iandick]

This is why you create rules with reasons and hierarchies. Basically, to break a rule you should understand the rule first. Stealing is wrong because it is almost always harmful, but stealing a belt to use as an emergency tourniquet is good because it prevents a greater immediate harm. If you wanted to be extra good, you should then go pay for the belt. If the salesman wanted to be extra good, they should refuse your payment.

The funny thing about consequentialism is it ends up being deontological in the end. Morality continues to exist in a vacuum of consequence.

[andrewdornan]

Kind of a misrepresentation with your example... as a deontologist there's also the commandment thou shalt not kill. Watch the movie watchmen... Rorscharch is a deontologist vs. Ozzymandias who's a determinist tell me who was right

[kadez]

jesus christ thank you so much for this, very easy to understand

[jewelamadi]

Thank you so much lord. Thanks a lot i know understand.

[dumanliveshere]

that was incredibly easy to follow and understand.

[raindropsofsky]

It is not always wrong to violate ethics, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, human rights, protocols, table manners and any other legal bodies in the universe.

[TheYeahman]

This lacks information. If talking about life and death the ethics of stopping millions of people is not a problem. If killing to save killing then it is a problem.

[antonhelsgaun]

>starts nuclear war

> _thousands_ of people will die