The Deontology Approach

Deontology

Reaction Paper # 2

ETHICS IN MANAGEMENT

Master in Business Administration – Group 134

Southern Nazarene University

Professor Koshy Muthalaly

Lee P Frye III

September 15, 2015

        The Deontology Approach is an ethical theory developed from the writings of a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. He believed the morality of actions were independent from its consequences. Meaning, the morality of acts can still be unethical even if the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences. The action has to meet three conditions to be considered a moral or right act. The Categorical Imperative states the three conditions in which an act must meet to be moral. Failure any of the three conditions would cause the act to be deemed immoral or wrong. Moral acts must be “amenable to being made consistently universal; it must respect the rational beings as ends in themselves; and it must stem from and respect, the autonomy of rational beings” (DeGeorge, 2010, p62-63).

        The first Categorical Imperative test requires the act to be “consistently universal.” This does not mean the act has to be made universal and everyone is performing the act universally, rather from a rational aspect, it would be accepted and has an internal consistency. Kant’s formulation for this condition states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (DeGeorge, 2010, p65).  The statement implies that one should only act according to a rule or principle if one is willing for the principle to be applied to oneself. For an act to be considered universal, the act also must not contradict itself or another act. For example, if bribery were to become moral, then everyone would give bribes and take bribes. Then no one would trust each other because they know they were bribed. The purpose of bribes would fail; therefore, it is contradictory; and not possible to be universalized. The condition of universality is only one of the three Categorical Imperatives.

        The second Categorical Imperative requires maintaining the respect of rational beings as ends in themselves. A rational being is conscious of being a person, values himself or herself, and are worthy of respect (DeGeorge, 2010, p65).  Respecting a personal as a rational being not as an end in itself, does not allow for one to use a person for personal gain. According to Richard DeGeorge, Kant’s second formulation states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (2010, p66). People deserve the respect to not be treated as a means, but not a means for our personal benefit. We have to consider the general rule of treating others as one would like to be treated. If we gave a bribe to obtain a major client, we would be pleased; but, would we be pleased to hear of the loss of a client because a competitor bribed them? We would not be pleased. This condition requires the act to respect and treat everyone fairly.

The respect of rational beings should include the respect of rational beings’ right of choice. This condition is a "test of morality of a rule is not whether people accept it...[but] whether all rational beings, thinking rationally, should accept it whether they are agents or receivers of the action" (DeGeorge, 2010, p67). The morality of an act is not solely based on its internal universal consistency, but if rational beings physically choose to accept the act as moral or immoral. DeGeorge states Kant’s third formulation of the Categorical Imperative as, “Act only so that the will through its maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally lawgiving” (2010, p67). For an act to be moral, we have to consider if it would be chosen by rational beings as a moral act. If bribery was to be deem moral would rational beings choose to bribe? Rational beings will consider the act from the point of view of the agent and receiver of the bribe. Rational beings will not want bribery applied to themselves or others; they will not want to be on the “loosing” end of a bribe and would not want to cause another to be on the “loosing” end. DeGeorge states, “they [rational beings] see the necessity of restricting their own actions, just as they expect others to restrict theirs” (2010, p67.) Therefore the act of bribery is immoral.