The term deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, which means duty
This ethical theory emphasizes the relationship between duty and the morality of an action, thereby not using the action’s consequences as its moral basis
This theory contends that religion should be used as the basis for morality
It is not recommended for polytheistic religions because their Gods do not always agree with each other (conflicting divine wills) and because they (some polytheistic religions) consider some of their Gods evil
Basis of morality
Divine command theory states that what is good is only good because God wills it. Our life’s purpose is to live according to what God wills because we came from him; in other words, being morally good is right because we fulfill what we were made for.
The strong version claims that something is right only when God commands it and something is wrong only when God forbids it. Morality is founded on God’s commands and not through reasoning.
This implies that when there is no God, there is no morality (moral nihilism), life is meaningless, and nothing has intrinsic value
The required three theses of the strong version:
Morality comes from God
Moral rightness means “willed by God” while moral wrongness means “forbidden by God”
Because morality is based on divine will, other forms of reasoning are unnecessary
The weak version, or as Soren Kierkegaard calls it, the teleological suspension of the ethical, omits/qualifies one or two of the three theses of the divine command theory’s strong version. Despite it maintaining that ethics has an independent foundation (i.e., reason), God’s commands still supersede it when they are conflicting with each other.
This implies that morality still exists even if God did not
This was further elaborated in Kierkegaard’s three stages of life:
Aesthetic stage - life of pleasure
Ethical stage - life of reason
Religious stage - life of faith
Criticism
How can we know of God’s will if there are too much people that have different ideas of it
It is irrational to believe that one group knows God’s genuine commands better than any other group
God’s commands with respect to a particular issue is sometimes too vague; for this reason, many moral issues are polarizing even among people under the same faith.
Some people claim that God directly communicated their will to them through a messenger wind
There are too many varying claims regarding God’s will that are often contradictory and cannot be satisfyingly resolved
It leads to moral arbitrariness
If God’s will is the only basis for morality, then God could command us to violate the rights of others and it would still be the morally correct action
Nevertheless, Robert Adams and other philosophers argue that this cannot be the case since ordering us to do something cruel for its own sake is contrary to the notion of God being loving, allowing us to disobey him
The argument posed against this defense stated that using love as a criterion presupposes that it is independent of God and stands above his commands—good actions are not good solely because of divine will
Human reason is rendered useless
We deprive our ourselves of our rationality when we only use God’s commands to decide for us
Strict adherence to God’s will is challenged when it contradicts with human reason
God’s significance in morality
Some thinkers still maintain that God is essential in morality despite disagreeing with the notion that morality is based on religion
They believe that God serves as the governmental authority who punishes wrong actions and rewards good actions; therefore, ensuring the existence of justice and provides a foundation for morality.
God’s existence entail that good will eventually prevail over evil
Although religion may not address the issue of what is moral and what is not (morality’s content), it still provides purpose for morality (morality’s motivation).
Religion provides practices and structures to reinforce its values unlike atheist ethics.
The older versions of this theory point to God as the source of the natural law
Some stoics even believed that nature is identical to God. This view was referred to as pantheism
In some of the modern and recent versions of this theory, a supernatural source for the natural law is unnecessary because they view it as something inherent in the universe and in humanity
They assume that humans can find these laws through reason. As a result, these views overcome the criticisms against the divine command theory by relying on a rational foundation for morality.
Basis of morality
This theory maintains that morality is part of the natural order of things; consequently, reason can find valid moral principles by examining the nature of humans and society.
What is morally right is strongly related to what feels natural, whereas what is morally wrong is strongly related to what feels unnatural. This argues that ethics regulate human conduct for the good of humanity, in which that good is governed by human nature; therefore, human nature should underlie ethics.
Notion of nature
The stoics, the first people who used the natural law as a basis for morality, viewed nature as identical to the natural order as a whole (cosmic nature). They believe that the world is essentially rational because it is governed by a cosmic principle that unifies everything.
As a result, being and acting reasonably is in harmony with the universe; conversely, violence and vice (consequences of irrationality) are incongruent with the universal laws.
Thomas Aquinas combined the stoics’ sense of natural law with Aristotle’s perspective of humans having an essence (specific purpose): rationality is both our purpose and our nature as humans, and as such, we ought to exhibit it in contemplation, deliberation, and action.
He also asserts that we can find the universal laws through reason—a process natural to humans.
Fundamental precepts of natural law according to Thomas Aquinas:
Good is to be pursued
Good in this context refers to our inclinations that are naturally perceived by reason as part of our true nature. The following are fundamental values which reflects our human nature:
Belief in the natural law necessitate that good actions should be pursued and bad actions should be avoided regardless of the consequences (moral absolutism); values from natural inclinations should not be violated.
Natural law theorists contend that basic values cannot be traded off against one another because they cannot be quantified. For this reason, the ends cannot justify the means of an action.
Issues arise during moral dilemmas since all moral values are treated equally, thereby any decision may be considered immoral. To address this, natural law theorists introduced two principles: the principle of forfeiture and principle of double effect
The principle of forfeiture states that a person loses their right to life when they threaten the right to life of others
The principle of double effect asserts that it is sometimes morally permissible to do good acts that result to bad consequences; however, it must satisfy four conditions to be justified:
The Means-End Condition - the bad effect should not be the means to achieve the good effect
The Right-Intention Condition - the intention must only involve the good effect, the bad consequence can be foreseen but should be an unintended side effect. If there is an alternative action without the bad effect but it was not taken, it is assumed that the bad effect was intentional.
The Proportionality Condition - the good effect must at least be equal to the significance of the bad effect
Harris disagrees with this notion and claims that consequences are part of moral evaluation but they must satisfy other conditions—referring to the conditions of the double effect principle besides proportionality—first before being considered.
Issues challenging the natural law theory
The distinction between unforeseen and unintentional (in the context of the right-intention condition) consequence can sometimes be unclear
David Hume thinks that this theory conflates that which is the case (descriptive) with that which ought to be the case (normative), emphasizing the inadequacy of observing nature for making value judgments. To illustrate, we can sometimes have natural tendencies which are considered unethical.
This theory assumes that moral principles are written in laws of nature—just like the view of God’s plan, any deviation from the natural is deemed immoral.
Pojman suggests that reason’s purpose may not be to apprehend our true nature or the natural laws, but, rather, to assist in our survival and contentment
Sources
Ethics - Theories and Applications by Francis Evangelista and Napoleon Mabaquiao Jr. (Chapter 4)