DEONTOLOGICAL BASIS OF BIOETHICS

Transcription

1 Indep Rev July-Aug 2014;16(7-9) IR-329 DEONTOLOGICAL BASIS OF BIOETHICS Dr. Hyder Ali Khan Demonstrator, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed Medical College Dr. Nasreen Ehsan Head of Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed Medical College Prof. Ayesha Humayun Shaikh Head of Department, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed Medical College Article received on: 11/08/2014 Accepted for Publication: 16/08/2014 Received after proof reading: 25/09/2014 Article Citation: Khan A.H, Ehsan N, Shaikh H.A. Deontological Basis of Bioethics. Indep Rev July-Sep 2014;16(7-9): Key Concepts Introduction deonotological basic of bioethics. Kant s Deontological theories Kantian Maxims Kantian Morality Abstract This article presents the concept of Kantian Deontology as a framework of bioethics, and explains the various concepts behind it. Kant s Deontological theories seek to preemptively disprove this conception (preemptive because he came before both authors). He seeks to prove that morality doesn t seek its basis in a metaphysical model outside human reasoning. Kant has an extensive refutation to Guy Thorne s conception that a world without Jesus Christ is a world doomed to darkness. In the given context, Kant s argument would be that, so long as man has his rationality, it will never be completely dark. Kant s philosophy is based on the premise that a system based on rationality is the best way to assess everything. It not only allows us to understand the Phenomenon around us, it also gives us a system of morality can be universalized and objectively defined. Key words: Deontology, Categorical Imperative, Phiosophy, Immanuel Kant, Kantianism, Kantian Deontologi cal Introduction In 1903, there was a bestselling novel called When It Was Dark, by Guy Thorne; the Mise en scène of which was that an archaeological team that recovered a tomb in the Greater Jerusalem area. They found a remarkably preserved corpse in the tomb, which showed signs of having been badly scourged by a whip, had nails hammered into its hands and feet, a spear wound on its side, and a crown of thorns on what remained of its scalp. When the findings were wired to London, pandemonium ensued. Men stopped caring for their families, there was an increased incidence of peopledrunks standing by thestreets and scaring the horses, and people stopped returning things that they had borrowed. This continued until it was revealed that it was a cruel hoax and an imposture, even going as far as calling it a Jewish hoax. The basic premise was that the disproving of Christ s Resurrection (ergo, disproving the claims of Christianity) led to a degradation of the moral core of society. Paraphrasing Dostoyevsky everything is permissible in the absence of God. Kant s Deontological theories seek to preemptively disprove this conception (preemp

2 tive because he came before both authors). He seeks to prove that morality doesn t seek its basis in a metaphysical model outside human reasoning. He seeks to answer two questions that plague all ethical theories- do ethics has an ontological or an epistemological basis. Also, in the context of modernism; what metaphysical model exists within which the former two questions can coexist? Kantian Metaphysics and Epistemology Kant s metaphysical system attempts to reconcile the developments Newtonian physics introduced to the world of science, along with traditional morality and religion. His philosophy stipulates that pure reason offers a method of systematically inventorying all of our intellectual endeavors. Kant points out that an a priori understandingof the overall structure of the world is necessary to make sense of the a posteriori element of our knowledge. He listed the four broad categories, as well as all the subcategories involved in the general structures of the world. Of Quantity (Unity, Plurality, Totality) Of Quality (Reality, Negation, Limitation) Of Reality (Inherence and Subsistence, Causality and Dependence, Community) Of Modality (Possibility-Impossibility, Existence-Nonexistence, Necessity-Contingency) Furthermore, Kant also argues that our experiential knowledge is also based on our a priori understanding of spatial and temporal relationships. Without a spatial and temporal representation, we cannot assign properties to sensations we experience. Furthermore, our understanding of space and time themselves cannot be perceived directly. We can only perceive these based on the experience of objects we have. He contends that, in the absence of these a priori understandings, that we cannot make sense of our experiential knowledge. Therefore, Kant neither ascribes to Rationalism, nor Empiricism, but a mixture of the two. One can rightfully ask what Kant s metaphysical model has to do with his ethical theories. A contention that a philosopher of the modern school would probably have with the pre-modern school of thought is as to whether or not a man is morally culpable if his actions follow either a deterministic pattern, or if the moral code he has to follow is alien to his nature. Kant believes that, like all else, morality is within the realm of human reasoning. Given that rationality (as well as all the previously mentioned perimeters of human understanding) is present in all of Mankind, any moral system derived from this metaphysical system is absolute and can be universalized. Kantian Morality To understand Kant s conception of morality, we need to understand each concept in isolation before looking at the gestalt of his ethical philosophy. The individual ideas that need to be tackled include Kant s concepts of autonomy; the set of laws upon which a moral code can be based (the categorical imperative); and the basis upon which these laws are formulated. Kantian Heteronomy and Autonomy Kant contends that actions that are driven by anything other than a sense of duty; such as instincts, emotions, wants and desires; can

3 neither be judged as either moral or immoral. He believes that such external forces tend to be fickle in nature, and cannot be used in the formulation of an ethical philosophy. He calls actions driven by these external forces heteronomous. Kant provides the example of animals as being heteronomous beings. We can further extrapolate an example from this- a lion cannot be deemed as being immoral for killing a rival s cub, as such actions are driven by the animal s instinct. The reason infanticide is immoral in humans is that Man is able to rise above his primal desires, and is able to act in a manner dictated by reason and rationality. Man, therefore, is deemed to be a rational being, therefore an autonomous being. Kantian Categorical Imperative Kant categorizes one s moral obligations into two groups- what he describes as a Hypothetical Imperative, and the Categorical Imperative. He describes the Hypothetical Imperative as an action based on the desired ends, and it usually takes an if/ then format. For example, if I am hungry, then I should eat. In comparison to this, Categorical Imperatives are actions that need to be done due to their intrinsic value, as opposed to any outcome that is being sought. Kant believes that a moral system based on hypothetical imperatives cannot be regarded as the basis for moral judgments of actions, because it is based on purely subjective considerations. Given Kant s belief in the moral superiority of Categorical Imperatives, one may rightfully ask a series of questions pertaining to how, upon what basis, and the set of presuppositions upon which one constructs a set of such laws. Kantian Maxims Kant describes Kantian Maxims Kant describes a basic system for assessing Categorical Imperatives. He believes that the simplest way to ensure that the law (or maxim) is moral is to universalize the action we are about to do. After universalizing the maxim, we need to assess whether or not the action is self-contradictory. If the universalized version makes sense, then we need to assess whether or not one would choose to live in a world where it was followed by everyone. If not, the maxim is immoral. For example, let us propose breaking promises as a maxim. Universalizing it makes the act of making a promise meaningless; therefore the act off breaking it would be equally meaningless. Owing to its self-contradictory nature, it cannot be taken as a maxim. Another example is making a maxim out of refusing to help someone if it is a source of inconvenience. It can be universalized, but an alternate Universe where this is commonplace is less pleasant than another where the converse is true. Therefore, this maxim is also unethical. Furthermore, Kant believes that an ethical treatment of other men is an important part of any ethical theory. Kant believes that respecting another person s humanity is essential; and that any system that treats another man as a means to an end is unjustifiable. Given that Kant s philosophy breaks moral

4 ity down into a simple (almost mathematical) formula based solely on rationality, these maxims are absolute and can be universalized. Kant s Reconciliation of Autonomy and the Maxims Having visited the concept of autonomy and heteronomy, we can ask how it ties in to the concept of maxims. If I never short change a customer out of fear of my business s reputation suffering, am I being ethical? Kant contends that the motive behind this action is heteronomous. Even though the action itself is not immoral, the act is not worthy of being labeled as moral either. Another example is charity- if I feel bad for a beggar; giving him money isn t ethical in its nature. Only a sense of duty makes the action moral. One may argue that such actions are not strictly moral because the fickle nature of emotions means that there may be times I don t fear ill repute, or there may be beggars I don t feel bad for. Therefore, I may short change my customers on occasion, or can avoid charity. The other reason is that heteronomous acts are devoid of good will. Kant believes that moral worth is primarily assessed by whether the will behind an action is determined by moral duty. Another way to rebut a maxim based on a heteronomous decision is that the act of giving full change to a client out of fear of gaining ill repute involves using him for your own gains. In this case, you are using another human being as a means to an end, and you fail to recognize his humanity. Summary of Kantian Morality Consider a thought experiment where your friend runs to your house, seeking sanctuary from a man who intends to kill him. Soon after, a man with a gun asks for the location of your friend. The intuitive thing in this scenario would be to lie about where he is; the intent being to save his life. Kant, however, felt that that the maxim against deception would mean that, even in this instance, lying is wrong. The reason is that the Maxims are intended to be Universal laws, and particular cases are contradictory. This means that the statements All cases of lying are impermissible cases and Some cases of lying are not impermissible cases can t both be true- and Kant contends that the latter can never be true. This thought experiment shows us the moral absolutism with which Kantian morality approach ethical conundrums; and that it is in stark contrast to any teleological view of ethics, which contend that the ends are the basis upon which an action is judged. Kant s philosophy is based on the premise that a system based on rationality is the best way to assess everything. It not only allows us to understand the Phenomenon around us, it also gives us a system of morality can be universalized and objectively defined. Based on his theories, Kant has an extensive refutation to Guy Thorne s conception that a world without Jesus Christ is a world doomed to darkness. In the given context, Kant s argument would be that, so long as man has his rationality, it will never be completely dark

5 References 1. The list in Kant s Metaphysics section is taken from body_trancendental.html 2. All other sections are based on class lectures and further readings. Any similarities to any other documents are entirely coincidental