Question: Deontology
Formalism The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed perhaps the most persuasive and fully articulated vision of ethics as measured not by consequences (teleology) but by the rightness of rules. In this formalistic view of ethics, the rightness of an act depends little (or, in Kant's view, not at all) on the results of the act. Kant believed in the key moral concept of "the goodwill." The moral person is a person of goodwill, and that person renders ethical decisions based on what is right, regardless of the consequences of the decision. Moral worth springs from one's decision to discharge one's duty. Thus the student who refuses to cheat on exams is morally worthy if his or her decision springs from duty, but morally unworthy if the decision is merely one born of self-interest, such as fear of being caught.
How does the person of goodwill know what is right? Here Kant propounded the categorical imperative, the notion that every person should act on only those principles that he or she, as a rational person, would prescribe as universal laws to be applied to the whole of humankind. A moral rule is "categorical" rather than "hypothetical" in that its prescriptive force is independent of its consequences. The rule guides us independent of the ends we seek. Kant believed that every rational creature can act according to his or her categorical imperative because all such persons have "autonomous, self-legislating wills" that permit them to formulate and act on their own systems of rules. To Kant, what is right for one is right for all, and each of us can discover that "right" by exercising our rational faculties.
Questions
1. Fifty-year-old Wesley Autry, waiting with his two young daughters in January 2007 at a New York City subway station, saw a man collapse and fall off the passenger platform into the space between the train rails. The headlight of a train appeared. Mr. Autry immediately jumped on top of the fallen man holding him down while the train passed over them, inches above Autry's head. Asked later why he jumped to the rescue, Autry said: "I did what I felt was right."38 What form of ethical reasoning did Autry seem to employ in making his courageous decision?
2. British priest Tim Jones caused a big stir by telling his congregation in 2009 that shoplifting is sometimes morally permissible for desperate people. In a sermon, Jones said that shoplifting can be justified when a person is in real need, is not greedy and takes only what is necessary to get by. Later Jones said: "The point I'm making is that when we shut down every socially acceptable avenue for people in need, then the only avenue left is the socially unacceptable one."39
a. Was Jones arguing from a teleological/consequentialist or a deontological/formalist point of view? Explain.
b. Do you agree with Jones? Explain.
3. In March 2013 as Tiger Woods's golf game was recovering from a long period of poor performance (by his standards), Nike released an ad with Woods's picture and the caption "Winning Takes Care of Everything," a remark Woods reportedly made many times in reference to his golfing performance. Critics attacked Woods and Nike saying the ad implied that golf victories would cancel out the shortcomings and misconduct of Woods's past, including his failed marriage, repeated infidelities and generally perceived arrogant, rude behavior.
a. Is the ad an example of consequentialist or formalist thinking? Explain.
b. In assessing the moral quality of an individual's life, can we properly weigh exemplary productivity against extensive wrongdoing? Consider cyclist Lance Armstrong, who has acknowledged having cheated by engaging in forbidden doping measures. Can we, nonetheless, consider Armstrong a "good person" in light of the enormous contribution he has made as an advocate for cancer research and as an inspiration to those who suffer from cancer? Explain.
c. In your view, was Nike wrong to run the "Winning Takes Care of Everything" ad? Explain.