Deontology Definition Essay

Whilst Deontology has its dragions it fails to support a authentic foundation for substantiallyistic last reservation Examine and prize this claim (30)Deontology is based upon the actions of a person, non the consequences. The word deontology is derived from the Greek word deontos. It was substantial by Immanuel Kant and it is an absolutist a priori system, the vocalize a priori essence it is knowable through and through experience and absolutist convey at that place atomic number 18 fixed rules that butt non be changed. This bureau Kant be duplicityved the occupation of the righteous law of nature was fixed and through experience, if everyone meeted these rules the world would be a better place.Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure suit in this book he devised his deontological possibleness of duty. He believed it is the duty of one to follow the moral law and not reckon situations with beliefings, inclination, love and compassion.Kant also believed that a ll military man seek for summum bonum which is the advance when all benevolents virtue and happiness argon united. To swear out plurality on their way to moral finality Immanuel Kant devised the flavorless imperative, this is in origin to the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative ordinarily starts sentence with an if e.g. if you wish to complete a good essay you must pass away time on it, where as a categorical imperative tells you that you should do roundthing, e.g. you should clean your teeth in the morning. This then was devised into common chord different rules on how to bonk your lifetime The Universal Law, Treat Humans as Ends in Themselves and Act as if you live in a Kingdom of Ends.Kants second tenet in the categorical imperative,So act that you treat humanity, twain in your own person and in the person of every opposite human being, never merely as a means, but ever so at the comparable time as an endThis shows that it could be an agree able possibility as it has good intentions in mind.Like m whatsoever theories, Deontology has its strengths and flunkes. atomic number 53 of its main strengths is that it is an absolutist possibleness. This means it is either intrinsically good or bad, e.g. do not commit murder.This is a study strength as it cook ups an easy possibleness spate to follow. This may attract heap towards the guess as it shows guidelines to follow which some people may rely on to take out their moral close making. other(prenominal) reason why it may attract people is beca apply the rules are fixed so they do not surrender to query the rules whether they are proper(a) or treat them just have to obey them safekeeping them in a comfortable position. This makes the theory practical in everyday use and people can depend upon the theory also on that point is no make to do any calculations.However at that place are many distant views to this strength. one of them is how people can become conditional on the theory. If they become to dependant upon the theory and it does not help them in a situation on moral decision making they may struggle to rally of what to do next. WD Ross devised the notion of prima facie duties, this means first appearance. This is when we follow our duty unless in that respect is an overriding obligation, e.g. telling a flannel lie to make someone tactual sensation good about them self. This goes against the principle of duty as you must not lie but you could argue that you leave alone look morally good about yourself if you make another person feel good. thusly this does not help is moral decision making as you have conflicting duties.Strength to this theory is that referee is always the autocratic. This means only intrinsically cover actions are billhooked for. This can be seen with Kants statement of good impart.it is impossible to understand of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, buy food good pull up stakes.This shows that only good lead is the only good we can reach out from the world.By justice being an absolute it means that you cannot justify immoral actions. This is attractive because it shows that by following this theory you will not act unmorally and you will be able to reach that summum bonum as you are fulfilled with good deeds. By not being able to do any intrinsically bad actions this will make people feel it is a reliable theory because if you follow these set rules you will not harm another person.Although it seeks justice, it does not seek the best interest of the mass, this means the minority may feel that justice has been make but on the other hand the majority may feel that justice has not been served. Personally I feel by pleasing the majority I will end up with a better outcome because there will greater happiness, this links in with Utilitarianism and the greatest pleasure over the greatest pain. Another reason why this theory has its flaws is the summum bonum.The summum bonum is the ultimate fulfilment but it can only be achieved by having an god soul as it cannot be achieved in the lifetime. This shows links with religion, even though Kant rejected theological arguments with the existence of God. This strikes a problem because not everyone believes in God so how could you follow the theory if you do not believe in his existence. Finally it is to legalistic because it assumes everyone is a law abiding person, people have different intentions so by take for granted everyone has the intention of justice is wrong.To see whether is authentically does fail these reliabilities we have to compare the strengths with the weaknesses.A weakness to the theory is that there are no limits to what can be universalised. This is because in one persons state of mind something may seem absolutely fine to another persons state of mind, e.g. a chronically blue person. They may feel suicide is suddenly acce ptable. This links in with the first law of the categorical imperativeDo not act on any principle that cannot be universalised.This means moral laws should be taken into account into all situations. again this is wrong because who is to say one right action is another persons right action, this makes it very unreliable with moral decision making.However if you take into account what the majority feel is wrong or right you could come to a ending on universal rules. This can be seen with rules such as do not commit murder as virtually people do not inhabit that and it is safe to say they do not agree with it.Finally another weakness is that Immanuel Kant starts to argue now is to be make but what ought to be done, this is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy.This is a weakness because it makes people feel as he is in control and he is telling what should and shouldnt be done. This is a weakness because Kant has different agreement on morals to another agreement, again he is assuming the the vulgar will agree with this method making unreliable. By Kant dictum what ought to be done he is showing what he feels is intrinsically good and that may vary from another.On the other hand by Kant saying he ought instead of is, it shows he is laying down ground rules and some people may like this as they will have rules to follow making it a attractive and reliable moral decision making theory.