Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Robin and I'd like to welcome you to this lesson on "Deontology and Immanuel Kant." I'm really looking forward to exploring this approach to ethical decision making with you in today's lesson.

By the end of today's lesson, you are going to be able to explain a deontological approach to ethical decision making using the work of Immanuel Kant as an example.

We are going to be using some key terms in today's lesson, and they are deontology, duty, ethics and Immanuel Kant.

Now, deontology is a way of thinking about ethics that focuses on following principles or duties to make a choice.

Duty is something you should do because it's the right thing, like telling the truth or keeping a promise.

Ethics is the study of right and wrong.

And Immanuel Kant is an 18th century philosopher who believe that doing the right thing means following important rules or principles, no matter what.

Today's lesson will have two parts.

Firstly, we're going to look at the nature of deontological ethics, and secondly, we're going to look at Kant's deontological ethics.

So let's get started and look together at the nature of deontological ethics.

It's important to start with worldviews.

Our worldview is made up of beliefs and values which affect how we interpret the world and how we behave.

So our worldview therefore influences how we decide between right and wrong.

If we can understand what values we have, so understand our worldview, then this can help us decide how to be good and understand why others think differently from us.

So let's have a think about that word, ethics.

Now, the word ethics comes from Ancient Greek.

The original word is Ethikos, which means related to one's character, and this word itself came from ethos, which means a way of life.

And so we can see that when we talk about ethics, we are talking about more maybe than just right or wrong, although that's often what we mean.

We're also talking about our character, the type of person we are, and also how we choose to live.

And so we can say that ethics refers to the way people live, which includes how their values form the foundation for their understanding of right and wrong.

So let's check your understanding of the word ethics.

Alex, Lucas and Laura are each trying to make a decision.

Whose decision is ethical? Alex says in A, "Should I let my friend copy my homework?" Lucas in B says, "Should I do my homework before or after dinner?" And in C Laura says, "What should I have for lunch?" Take a moment, think carefully, think about what you know about the word ethics and make a choice, whose decision is about ethics? Write down the letter A, B, or C.

Pause the video to allow yourself time to do this.

Well done if you said that A, Alex's decision was an ethical one.

He said, "Should I let my friend copy my homework?" This is a decision about right and wrong, and it's going to be informed by the values that Alex has.

So Alex's decision is ethical because he's making a choice about right and wrong.

There are many different ways of making ethical decisions.

In this situation, Alex asked Lucas and Laura for some advice about what to do.

So let's remind us, his ethical question or decision was, "Should I let my friend copy my homework?" Now, Lucas' advice on this is that he shouldn't.

He says, "No, because it's dishonest." But Laura's advice is different.

She says, "Yes, otherwise the friend might get a detention." Take a moment to think.

Are Lucas and Laura thinking about principles or rules or duties, so things that are right or wrong in themselves, or are they thinking about the consequences of the decision? If you are able, talk to somebody else or pause the video and talk to me and then come back to the lesson.

Lucas says, "No, because it's dishonest." So it's apparent that Lucas believes that what's right or wrong depends on the following certain principles, like honesty or fairness.

You could also call this following rules.

Remember, Laura's advice was quite different.

She says he should let his friend copy his homework, "Yes, otherwise the friend might get a detention." The difference here is that Laura believes that what's right or wrong depends on the consequences.

So she asks herself questions when making ethical decisions, like what will happen if I do this? In this situation, she's thought not about whether honesty or fairness are right or wrong in themselves, but she's thought, what will happen if I do let my friend copied my homework, or what will happen if I don't? She's making a decision based on the outcome or consequences.

Deontology is an approach to ethical decision making that focuses on following rules and duties regardless of the outcomes.

So when Lucas says, "No, because it's dishonest," he's taking a deontological approach.

Lucas' advice to Alex is based on a deontological approach because he says Alex should not let his friend copy his homework because doing so would break a moral principle, which in this case is honesty.

So deontology is interested in rules or principles or duties.

Like the word ethics earlier, the word deontology comes from Ancient Greek too.

It has two parts, deon, and logy, so deontology.

Deon is a Greek word meaning duty, logy comes from the Greek word logia, meaning reasoning, which means using our natural abilities to work things out.

And so, we can see a deontological approach to ethics means using your reason to work out what your duty is.

So let's check your understanding.

What is deontological ethics? Is it A, deciding if something is right or wrong based on principles you should follow, is it B, deciding what is right by looking at how happy it makes people, or is it C, deciding if something is right or wrong by how much it helps you reach a goal? Take a moment to jot down what you think the right answer is, A, B, or C.

Pause the video if you need to and then come back to me.

Well done if you put A.

Deontological ethics is deciding if something is right or wrong based on principles you should follow.

Sometimes we talk about duty instead of principles or rules.

So deontology is the view that some actions are always right or wrong, no matter what happens as a result.

So this approach believes that there are clear moral rules that everyone should follow, and these guide us in knowing what is right.

So for deontologists, it's not enough to think about what benefits might come from an action or the outcome.

Instead they ask questions like, could this action be a rule that everyone could follow? So for example, if you are a deontologist, you might think that telling the truth is always a good action, and this is because honesty is a principle that we would like everyone to practise.

So if everyone was honest, it would make the world a better place.

And so, it's a good rule to follow.

But on the other hand, you would see stealing as wrong, no matter what the situation, no matter what the circumstances, and that's because it's harmful.

And you don't think that if everyone stole, that would be a good thing, it wouldn't be universalizable, it wouldn't be universally acceptable, which means it wouldn't work if everyone did it.

So this is how deontology gives us a framework to understand that some actions are inherently good or bad.

So that means that they just are good or bad in themselves regardless of what consequences or outcomes they lead to.

So take a moment to think about where you stand in relation to deontology.

Is there always a right and a wrong thing to do? What has influenced your opinion on this? So for example, is it your upbringing that has led you to think yes, some things just are right and some things are wrong? If you are able to, pause this video and talk to somebody else, or you can pause and talk to me and have a think about where you stand on this question of right and wrong.

So let's see if we can put into practise what you've been learning.

Alex and Laura are debating whether the golden rule, do to others what you would want them to do to you, is an example of deontological ethics.

Now, the golden rule is a rule that's found in all of the world religions.

So have a think about whether they are correct or not.

Remember they're discussing, is it deontological? So that means is it giving a clear right and wrong regardless of thinking about the outcome? Now, Alex says, "This is deontological ethics because it's about doing what feels right, no matter what the rule says." Laura says, "This is deontological ethics because it's about following a principle that applies to everyone." So they're both saying it's deontological, but they're giving different reasons.

So are their reasons for saying it's deontological correct? Is it, like Alex says, about doing what feels right regardless of a rule, or is it like Laura says about following a principle, rule or duty that everyone else can follow too? Decide whether they are correct or not and make a note of why.

So pause the video whilst you do that.

So let's have a look at how you did on that task.

Alex was incorrect.

So it is deontological ethics, but his explanation was incorrect, so you should have said he was wrong.

And here's something you could have said about why.

Alex wrongly says this is deontological because you don't have to follow the principle, but deontology is about following principles which do not change based on outcome.

Now, Laura is correct, and this is what you might have said, Laura, correctly says deontology is about following principles which are the same for everyone.

The golden rule is based on the principle that we should all show mutual respect.

Have a look at your work and make any corrections that you might need to.

Well done if you made any of those points there.

So now that we've learned about the nature of deontological ethics, we are ready for the second part of the lesson, looking at Kant's example.

So we're going to be learning about Kant's deontological ethics.

Here you can see a statue of Immanuel Kant, which stands in his hometown.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, a city in Prussia, now Kaliningrad in Russia.

Growing up in a strict Christian family, Kant develop a strong sense of duty.

Kant's strong sense of duty could be seen in his lifestyle.

He was known for being very disciplined.

He often kept a very strict schedule and he rarely ventured from his home town.

So let's think about how Kant viewed right and wrong.

Kant believe that true morality, which means our understanding of right and wrong, isn't determined by the outcomes of our actions, but by our intentions and duties.

He introduced the concept of the categorical imperative, which suggests that we should act according to principles or duties that we would want to become universal laws.

So Kant was not interested in the outcome or consequence of an action.

Instead he was interested in the thought that went into it beforehand.

Are we thinking about our duty? And to help us know, the categorical imperative is just a kind of tool really for working out what you should do.

So in other words, before making a decision, we should ask ourselves if we would want everyone to act in the same way.

So if someone considers lying, Kant would argue that, well, if everyone lied, then trust would break down and communication would be impossible.

Therefore, lying is inherently wrong.

It just is a wrong thing to do.

And for Kant it wouldn't matter if lying produced a good outcome or not or if he had good reasons for doing it.

The fact is that if everyone lied, things would fall apart, and so we shouldn't do it.

Kant emphasised the importance of duty, and he said that certain actions are morally right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.

So the sorts of duties he was talking about as we saw in the lying example, were honesty and also fairness.

These duties or principles should always be upheld because they reflect our moral obligations, so our moral duties, towards ourselves and towards others.

Kant wrote lots of books which have laid the foundation for modern ethics, including one called "The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." Kant's philosophy encourages us to think critically about our actions and to uphold our moral responsibilities.

So he wanted people to think carefully about why they were making the choice they were when thinking about right and wrong.

His influence continues today and it reminds us that true ethical behaviour comes from a commitment to doing what is right.

And Kant felt this was guided by reason, so our ability to work things out, and also respect for others.

So we're thinking about our duty and we're using our natural ability to work out what that is, taking others into account when we think, well, what would happen if everyone did the same? So take a moment to discuss with somebody nearby or talk to me, what do you think, is it a good idea to reflect on what would happen if everyone did the same thing as you? Does Kant have a point? Pause the video and come back to me when you've had time to talk about this.

So let's check your understanding.

What is the categorical imperative? Is it A, a rule that says we should follow laws without question, is it B, a principle that tells us to act according to rules we would want everyone to follow, or is it C, a guideline that focuses only on the outcomes of our actions? Take a moment to think about your answer and write down the letter that you think is correct.

Well done if you chose B.

It is a principle that tells us to act according to the rules we would want everyone to follow.

So what Kant with doing was not giving us a lift of rules, but he was giving us a tool in the categorical imperative that would help us work out which rule or duty we should follow.

So let's have a think about how the categorical imperative actually works.

Remember, it asks you to act according to rules which could be applied universally to everyone.

First, you must identify what you're thinking of doing, and secondly, you should decide what rule you will be following if you did this thing.

The next step is to consider whether this rule could be universalized.

In other words, would the world work well if everyone followed this rule.

If it can't be universalized, you should not do it, but if it can, then you should.

So let's think of a situation.

Imagine you're in a situation where someone urgently asks where your friend is, clearly intending to harm them.

Your first instinct might be to lie to protect your friend, but according to Kant, even in this situation, lying is not the right thing to do.

Let's apply his categorical imperative step by step.

So firstly, we're identifying what we're thinking of doing.

I'm thinking of lying to someone who asks where my friend is to protect them from harm.

Secondly, we decide what rule we'd be following if we did this.

So the rule would be it's okay to lie to protect someone's safety.

Next, we consider whether the world would work well if everyone followed this rule.

Now, Kant would say no because if everyone lied to protect others, no one would know who to trust and communication would fall apart.

So if you answered yes, the world would work well, then it's something you should do.

So you decide at this point whether it's okay to do.

We would say no because if everyone lied, trust would be lost and society would struggle to function properly.

It's not the right thing to do.

Kant himself use truth telling and lying as an example.

He argued that telling the truth is always a moral duty, no matter the consequences.

Even if lying could say the life, it's still wrong because if everyone lied, trust will be lost and communication would break down.

Now that you've seen how Kant's categorical imperative works, have a think.

Do you think we should always follow rules even when they lead to difficult outcomes? Take a moment, discuss if you have someone nearby or talk to me and then come back, pause if you need to.

So let's check your understanding.

True or false, Kant believe that lying was acceptable if it can avoid harm to others? Take a moment to think about whether this statement is true or false and take a little time to think about why.

Pause if you need to.

Well done if you said false, Kant thought lying was always wrong, no matter what the situation.

So let's consider why.

Kant believe that lying is always wrong as it breaks the moral rule of honesty, which he thought everyone should follow to keep trust in society.

So one difficulty that a lot of people have with Kant's theory is that it leaves out important parts of human nature, the natural positive feelings that we have for others.

Good actions are based on duty, and so he overlooks actions that are not based on duty but are based on a genuine feeling of care.

Here you can see a picture of someone sick in hospital.

Imagine that you were sick in hospital and your friends came to visit you.

If someone visited you because they really wanted to see you, to you this would seem good, it would seem like a good thing to do to both you and to them.

Even though they're doing it because they really want to and not because they have to, it would make it feel good the fact that they wanted to do it, they naturally were inclined to come and see you.

And in fact, you'd probably feel even better about what they were doing, about their visit to you if you knew they wanted to see you, if you knew they were doing it because they genuinely cared and not just because they felt they had to, not just because it was their duty.

So the problem is that Kant's theory seems to have missed something out.

Take a moment to discuss with someone nearby or with me, do you agree that Kant has missed something with his theory? Has he missed out something that really matters to people? Pause the video and then come back to me.

So let's have a think about our own example.

Jun is in hospital and Aisha and Andeep are going to visit him.

Aisha says, "I can't wait to see Jun.

I'm glad to miss football training tonight because I really want to catch up with him." Andeep says, "I'd rather go to football training than visit Jun, but I know as a friend that I should go to see him." Take a moment to discuss with someone nearby or pause and talk to me, who would Kant say is being the good person in this scenario? Pause if you need to.

Kant would've said it is Andeep who is the good person in this scenario because he is the one acting outta duty.

Aisha says, "I can't wait to see Jun.

I'm glad to miss football training because I really want to catch up with him." Andeep says, "I'd rather go to football training than visit Jun, but I know as a friend that I should go to see him." So although Aisha's reasons seems kinder, according to Kant, this is not the most important value driving our decision making.

So let's practise using Kant's deontological ethics.

Imagine you are tempted to look at a friend's answers during a test.

Would this be acceptable according to Immanuel Kant's deontology? I'd like you to follow the steps in the table to come to a conclusion that Kant would agree with.

So the first step is what are you thinking of doing? Next, what rule would you be following if you did it? Thirdly, would the world still work if everyone followed this rule? And finally, is it okay to do? Take some time to write down your answer to each question.

And remember, we are thinking about what Immanuel Kant's deontology would tell us to do.

Pause the video.

Let's have a look at what you wrote.

So you could have written something like this.

For number one, what are you thinking of doing? I'm thinking of cheating on a test to get a better mark.

For number two, what rule would you be following if you did it? It's okay to cheat if you want to pass.

And for number three, would the world still work if everyone followed this rule? No, because if everyone cheated, no one would trust the results of tests.

And finally, is it okay to do? The answer from Kant would be no.

Well done if youth came to the conclusion that Kant would say no to this.

So let's practise our understanding of one of the difficulties with Kant's deontological ethics.

Number two, Jacob wants to lie to protect his friend from bullies who are looking for him.

Kant would say this is wrong.

I'd like you to use the sentence starter to explain why Jacob disagrees with Kant.

So in other words, you're going to be saying why Kant has got it wrong in this situation.

So your sentence starter is, "Kant would say lying to protect my friend is wrong because," and then Jacob would finish, "But I think Kant has ignored." Take some time to write down that sentence starter.

Try to finish the first one and then have a think about what Jacob would say Kant has ignored in his view on this situation.

Pause the video and then come back to me.

So let's have a look at your work.

You could have said, Kant would say, lying to protect my friend is wrong because telling the truth is a rule we should all follow.

But I think Kant has ignored that I am motivated by kindness, and I think that the kindest thing to do is to protect my friend.

Well done if you wrote something similar to what Jacob has said here.

So let's have a think about what we have learned today on deontology and Kant.

Ethical decisions are decisions about right and wrong, and there are different ways of making them.

Deontology means making an ethical decision based on rules or duty.

According to Immanuel Kant, true moral actions come from duty and are guided by the idea that we should always act in ways that could be applied as universal laws.

And finally, Immanuel Kant's deontology can be criticised because it ignores the value of motives like kindness.

Well done and thank you for all your hard work today.