Element contents
Series: Elements in Ethics
Deontology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 January 2023
Summary
Deontology is a theory about how we should act, morally speaking. It comes in several varieties, but all share certain doctrines, many of which are close to those found in the so-called 'common-sense morality' of the Western world. And all varieties are united in their opposition to consequentialism, a theory that, in its simplest form, tells us that we should always act so as to maximize impersonal value by bringing about the best consequences. This Element presents some of the different versions of deontology, including the views of W. D. Ross, and, to a lesser extent, Immanuel Kant. It defends certain deontological tenets, while challenging others, and contrasts them with consequentialism. Deontology and consequentialism are two of the main contenders in ethical theory, but virtue ethics is another, and it too is addressed (briefly), with an attempt to see it, in its most plausible form, as part of deontology.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in EthicsOnline ISBN: 9781108581196Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 02 February 2023
References
Alexander, L. and Moore, M. (2016) ‘Deontological Ethics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (1988) (13th c). ‘Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, art. 7, “Of Killing”’. In Baumgarth, W. P. and Regan, R. J. (eds.) On Law, Morality, and Politics, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 226–7.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (1996) ‘Intuitionism, Pluralism, and the Foundations of Ethics’. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Timmons, M. (eds.) Moral Knowledge: New Readings in Moral Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–36.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (2004) The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (ed.) (2006) Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (2017) ‘Moral Particularism’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/moral-particularism/.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (2020) ‘Reflective Equilibrium’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006) ‘Morality and Practical Reason: A Kantian Approach’ in Copp 2006, 282–320.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. (2011) ‘In Defense of Consequentializing’. In Timmons, M. (ed.) Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–119.Google Scholar
Ebels-Duggan, K. (2011) ‘Kantian Ethics’. In Miller, C. (ed.) The Continuum Companion to Ethics, London: Bloomsbury, 168–89.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2012) ‘The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and Permissibility’. Philosophy Compass, 7(3): 183–96.Google Scholar
Fohr, S. A. (1998) ‘The Double Effect of Pain Medication: Separating Myth from Reality’. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 1: 315–28.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1967) ‘The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect’. Oxford Review No. 5 (reprinted in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar
Hursthouse, R. and Pettigrove, G. (2018) ‘Virtue Ethics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. and Smith, M. (2006) ‘Absolutist Moral Theories and Uncertainty’. The Journal of Philosophy, 103(6): 267–83.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. and Cureton, A. (2021) ‘Kant’s Moral Philosophy’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/kant-moral/.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (1984) ‘Does Consequentialism Demand Too Much?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13: 239–54.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1993) [1785] Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed., translated by J. W. Ellington, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2015) [1788] Critique of Practical Reason, rev. ed., translated by M. Gregor, translation revised by Reath, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, L. (1996) Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Blackmail, Fraud and Kindred Puzzles of the Law, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. (2019) ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/double-effect/.Google Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (1991) ‘Agent-Relativity and the Doing–Happening Distinction’. Philosophical Studies, 63: 167–85.Google Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (2013) ‘Intuitionism’. In LaFollette, H. and Persson, I. (eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 287–310.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1970) The Possibility of Altruism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. K. and Rickless, S. C. (2014) ‘Three Cheers for Double Effect’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1): 125–58.Google Scholar
Phillips, D. (2019) Rossian Ethics: W.D. Ross and Contemporary Moral Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. (2011) Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. (ed.) (2020) The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. S. (1989a) ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18: 334–51.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. S. (1989b) ‘Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing’. Philosophical Review, 98(3): 287–312.Google Scholar
Rachels, J. (1975) ‘Active and Passive Euthanasia’. New England Journal of Medicine, 292: 78–86.Google Scholar
Ridge, M. and McKeever, S. (2020) ‘Moral Particularism and Moral Generalism’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/moral-particularism-generalism/.Google Scholar
Rohlf, M. (2020) ‘Immanuel Kant’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/kant/.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998) What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2008) Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, S. (ed.) (1988) Consequentialism and Its Critics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, S. (1994) The Rejection of Consequentialism, rev. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1972) ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229–43.Google Scholar
Sykes, N. and Thorns, A. (2003) ‘The Use of Opioids and Sedatives at the End of Life’. The Lancet Oncology, 1: 312–18.Google Scholar
Taurek, J. M. (1977) ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4): 293–316.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (2008) ‘Turning the Trolley’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 36(4): 359–74.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. (1998) ‘The Right and the Good and W. D. Ross’s Criticism of Consequentialism’. Utilitas, 10: 261–80.Google Scholar
Woollard, F. (2012a) ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing I: Analysis of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’. Philosophy Compass, 7(7): 448–58.Google Scholar
Woollard, F. (2012b) ‘The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing II: The Moral Relevance of the Doing/Allowing Distinction’. Philosophy Compass, 7(7) 459–69.Google Scholar
Woollard, F. and Howard-Snyder, F. (2021) ‘Doing vs. Allowing Harm’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/doing-allowing/.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 7
- Cited by