MGMT 2010 · HKUST BUSINESS SCHOOL
Business Ethics & the Individual
Lecture 3: Deontology
Detailed Revision Notes · Compiled March 2026
1 What Is Deontology?
Deontology (from Greek deon = duty) is an ethical framework that judges the morality of actions based on
rules and duties, not on consequences or character.
Core question: "What is my duty?" — not "What will produce the best outcome?" or "What kind of
person should I be?"
The most influential deontological thinker is Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), whose Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785) is the foundational text. Deontology holds that certain actions are intrinsically
right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.
Virtue Ethics Deontology Consequentialism
"Who should I be?" "What is my duty?" "What produces best results?"
Focus: Character & Focus: Rules & obligations. Focus: Outcomes & welfare.
disposition. Origin: Aristotle. Origin: Kant. Origin: Bentham & Mill.
2 The Categorical Imperative
Kant's central idea is the Categorical Imperative — a supreme moral law that is unconditional and universal.
Unlike a hypothetical imperative ("If you want X, do Y"), the categorical imperative commands regardless of
desires or goals.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
Unconditional. Commands regardless of what you "If you want X, do Y." Conditional on desires —
want or what the outcome will be. not a moral law for Kant.
Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative in three main formulations — all expressing the same
underlying moral principle.
3 The Three Formulations
F O R M U L AT I O N 1
The Universal Law Formula
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law."
In plain English: Before you act, ask — "What if everyone did this?" If universalising your action leads
to a contradiction or an unacceptable world, the action is morally impermissible.
Example — Lying to get a loan
Your maxim: "I will make a false promise to get money when I need it."
Universalised: If everyone made false promises, the institution of promising would collapse — no
one would believe promises. The maxim contradicts itself.
Therefore: Lying to get a loan is morally wrong.
Two Types of Contradiction
T YP E D E S CRIP T ION E X AMP L E
Contradiction in The action becomes impossible if Lying destroys the concept of
conception universalised promising
Contradiction in will You couldn't rationally will it Not helping others — you may need
universalised help one day
F O R M U L AT I O N 2
The Humanity Formula
"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."
In plain English: Never use people purely as tools for your own goals. Every person has inherent
dignity and must be respected as a rational agent — not merely exploited.
Key distinction:
Using someone as a means only = wrong (treating them as a mere instrument)
Using someone as a means while also respecting them as an end = acceptable (e.g., paying
someone for their services — you use their labour, but you also respect their autonomy)
Business Examples
DE CE PT IV E ADVER T I SI NG
A company that deceives customers to maximise profit → treating them as means only
→ Morally wrong
EMPLOY EE T H R EATS
A manager who pressures employees through threats → using them as mere instruments
→ Morally wrong
HON EST NE G OT IAT I ON
Using the other party as a means while respecting their rational agency
→ Acceptable
F O R M U L AT I O N 3
The Kingdom of Ends Formula
"Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of
ends."
In plain English: Imagine a community of all rational beings, each treating every other as an end. Act
only in ways consistent with the rules of this ideal community. You should be both the lawmaker and
the subject of the moral law simultaneously.
4 Perfect vs. Imperfect Duties
Kant distinguishes between two types of duties, arising from the two types of contradiction in the Universal
Law Formula.
PE RFECT DU T Y IM P ER F EC T D U T Y
Absolute obligation — no exceptions, no wiggle Obligatory but allows discretion in how/when
room. Arises from a contradiction in conception. fulfilled. Arises from a contradiction in will.
Examples: Do not lie, do not murder Examples: Develop your talents, help others in need
Important: Perfect duties always override imperfect duties in cases of conflict.
5 The Good Will
Kant's core claim: Only a good will is unconditionally good. A person acting out of duty, for duty's sake
alone, has moral worth.
Acting in accordance with duty is not enough — you must act from duty. The difference is crucial:
SH OPKE EPE R — NO M OR AL WOR T H
Gives correct change because it is good for business → does the right thing, but not for the right reason
→ Acting in accordance with duty only
SH OPKE EPE R — HAS M OR A L WOR T H
Gives correct change because it is their duty to be honest
→ Acting from duty ✓
Exam tip: Consequences don't matter for Kant. Even if lying would save a life, lying is still wrong because it
violates the categorical imperative. This is where Kant is most criticised.
6 Autonomy & Rational Agency
Kant grounds morality in rational autonomy — the capacity of rational beings to govern themselves by self-
imposed moral law.
RATIONAL AGENTS SOURCE OF MORALITY SELF-LEGISLATION
Humans can reason about Morality is not given by God, Because we are rational, we
right and wrong — this society, or emotion — it is can recognise and obey the
rational capacity gives us derived from reason alone. categorical imperative — we
inherent dignity and worth. are both subject to and author
of the moral law.
7 Deontology vs. Other Frameworks
Understanding how deontology compares to other ethical frameworks is essential for the exam — you must
be able to apply each lens to a scenario and identify its distinguishing features.
FE AT URE D E ON TOLOGY ( K AN T ) CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM VIRT UE E T HICS
Core focus Rules / duties Outcomes / Character of the agent
consequences
Key question "What is my duty?" "What produces best "Who should I be?"
results?"
Basis Rational moral law Utility / welfare Virtuous character
Role of Irrelevant Central Context-dependent
consequences
Flexibility Rigid — rules are absolute Flexible but outcome- Context-sensitive
focused
Role of Must act from duty — Irrelevant Important — virtuous person
emotion/motive motive matters feels rightly
8 Deontology in Business Ethics
Rights-Based Thinking
Deontology supports the idea that people have fundamental rights that cannot be violated even for good
outcomes:
Right to privacy
Right to honest information
Right to fair treatment
Right not to be deceived or manipulated
Corporate Applications
T RUT HFUL ADV ERT IS IN G
Deceiving consumers treats them as means only → wrong regardless of profit outcome
→ Impermissible under deontology
EMPLOY EE RIG H TS
Workers cannot be exploited purely for profit — they have inherent dignity as rational agents
→ Exploitation is impermissible
WHI ST LE BLOWIN G
If you have a duty of honesty, you may be obligated to report wrongdoing regardless of consequences to
yourself
→ Duty-bound action
CON T RACTS
Must be honoured because breaking promises cannot be universalised (contradiction in conception)
→ Perfect duty to keep promises
The Limits of "The Ends Justify the Means"
Deontology directly challenges consequentialist business reasoning:
"We lied to the client but it closed the deal" → treating clients as means → impermissible
"We cut corners on safety to save costs" → violates workers' rights → impermissible
Even if profits increase, duties and rights cannot be sacrificed.
9 Strengths & Criticisms
ST RE NGT HS C R IT IC I SM S
Protects individual rights — prevents Absolute rules cause problems — never lie,
exploitation even when it would produce good even to a murderer? → counterintuitive
outcomes conclusions
Clear and consistent — universal rules provide Conflicts between duties — what if "do not lie"
predictable moral guidance clashes with "protect innocent life"? Kant
offers little guidance
Respects human dignity — every person has
inherent worth, not just instrumental value Ignores consequences entirely — right even if
it causes catastrophic harm
Motivation matters — emphasises acting from
genuine duty, not self-interest Too rigid — real moral situations are complex
and context-sensitive
Non-consequentialist — prevents "ends justify
means" reasoning Formalism — CI can be applied to justify
almost anything with clever enough
formulation
Doesn't account for special relationships —
treats strangers and loved ones identically
10 Key Terms to Know
Deontology Ethical framework focused on rules, duties, and obligations — not outcomes
or character
Categorical Imperative Kant's supreme moral law — unconditional, universal, and derived from
reason alone
Universal Law Formula Act only on maxims you could will to become universal laws without
contradiction
Humanity Formula Treat persons always as ends in themselves, never merely as means
Kingdom of Ends Imagine a community of rational beings; act consistently with its rules as both
lawmaker and subject
Good Will The only unconditionally good thing; acting from duty for duty's sake alone
has moral worth
Perfect Duty Absolute obligation, no exceptions — e.g., do not lie, do not murder
Imperfect Duty Obligatory but with discretion in how/when fulfilled — e.g., help others,
develop your talents
Autonomy Rational self-governance; the capacity to give oneself the moral law — the
basis of human dignity
Hypothetical Imperative Conditional command: "If you want X, do Y" — NOT moral law for Kant
11 Quick Revision Checklist
Can you state all three formulations of the Categorical Imperative in your own words?
Can you explain the difference between acting in accordance with duty vs. acting from duty?
Can you distinguish perfect from imperfect duties with examples?
Can you apply the Universal Law Formula to a business scenario (e.g., deceptive advertising)?
Can you explain why Kant says consequences are irrelevant to moral worth?
Can you list 2 strengths AND 2 weaknesses of deontology?
Can you compare deontology to consequentialism and virtue ethics?
Exam strategy: In case-based questions, the key move for deontology is to:
Step 1: Identify the maxim behind the action
Step 2: Universalise it and check for contradiction (in conception or in will)
Step 3: Check whether persons are being treated as ends or merely as means
Business Ethics & the Individual
Lecture 3: Deontology
Detailed Revision Notes · Compiled March 2026
1 What Is Deontology?
Deontology (from Greek deon = duty) is an ethical framework that judges the morality of actions based on
rules and duties, not on consequences or character.
Core question: "What is my duty?" — not "What will produce the best outcome?" or "What kind of
person should I be?"
The most influential deontological thinker is Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), whose Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785) is the foundational text. Deontology holds that certain actions are intrinsically
right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.
Virtue Ethics Deontology Consequentialism
"Who should I be?" "What is my duty?" "What produces best results?"
Focus: Character & Focus: Rules & obligations. Focus: Outcomes & welfare.
disposition. Origin: Aristotle. Origin: Kant. Origin: Bentham & Mill.
2 The Categorical Imperative
Kant's central idea is the Categorical Imperative — a supreme moral law that is unconditional and universal.
Unlike a hypothetical imperative ("If you want X, do Y"), the categorical imperative commands regardless of
desires or goals.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
Unconditional. Commands regardless of what you "If you want X, do Y." Conditional on desires —
want or what the outcome will be. not a moral law for Kant.
Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative in three main formulations — all expressing the same
underlying moral principle.
3 The Three Formulations
F O R M U L AT I O N 1
The Universal Law Formula
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law."
In plain English: Before you act, ask — "What if everyone did this?" If universalising your action leads
to a contradiction or an unacceptable world, the action is morally impermissible.
Example — Lying to get a loan
Your maxim: "I will make a false promise to get money when I need it."
Universalised: If everyone made false promises, the institution of promising would collapse — no
one would believe promises. The maxim contradicts itself.
Therefore: Lying to get a loan is morally wrong.
Two Types of Contradiction
T YP E D E S CRIP T ION E X AMP L E
Contradiction in The action becomes impossible if Lying destroys the concept of
conception universalised promising
Contradiction in will You couldn't rationally will it Not helping others — you may need
universalised help one day
F O R M U L AT I O N 2
The Humanity Formula
"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."
In plain English: Never use people purely as tools for your own goals. Every person has inherent
dignity and must be respected as a rational agent — not merely exploited.
Key distinction:
Using someone as a means only = wrong (treating them as a mere instrument)
Using someone as a means while also respecting them as an end = acceptable (e.g., paying
someone for their services — you use their labour, but you also respect their autonomy)
Business Examples
DE CE PT IV E ADVER T I SI NG
A company that deceives customers to maximise profit → treating them as means only
→ Morally wrong
EMPLOY EE T H R EATS
A manager who pressures employees through threats → using them as mere instruments
→ Morally wrong
HON EST NE G OT IAT I ON
Using the other party as a means while respecting their rational agency
→ Acceptable
F O R M U L AT I O N 3
The Kingdom of Ends Formula
"Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of
ends."
In plain English: Imagine a community of all rational beings, each treating every other as an end. Act
only in ways consistent with the rules of this ideal community. You should be both the lawmaker and
the subject of the moral law simultaneously.
4 Perfect vs. Imperfect Duties
Kant distinguishes between two types of duties, arising from the two types of contradiction in the Universal
Law Formula.
PE RFECT DU T Y IM P ER F EC T D U T Y
Absolute obligation — no exceptions, no wiggle Obligatory but allows discretion in how/when
room. Arises from a contradiction in conception. fulfilled. Arises from a contradiction in will.
Examples: Do not lie, do not murder Examples: Develop your talents, help others in need
Important: Perfect duties always override imperfect duties in cases of conflict.
5 The Good Will
Kant's core claim: Only a good will is unconditionally good. A person acting out of duty, for duty's sake
alone, has moral worth.
Acting in accordance with duty is not enough — you must act from duty. The difference is crucial:
SH OPKE EPE R — NO M OR AL WOR T H
Gives correct change because it is good for business → does the right thing, but not for the right reason
→ Acting in accordance with duty only
SH OPKE EPE R — HAS M OR A L WOR T H
Gives correct change because it is their duty to be honest
→ Acting from duty ✓
Exam tip: Consequences don't matter for Kant. Even if lying would save a life, lying is still wrong because it
violates the categorical imperative. This is where Kant is most criticised.
6 Autonomy & Rational Agency
Kant grounds morality in rational autonomy — the capacity of rational beings to govern themselves by self-
imposed moral law.
RATIONAL AGENTS SOURCE OF MORALITY SELF-LEGISLATION
Humans can reason about Morality is not given by God, Because we are rational, we
right and wrong — this society, or emotion — it is can recognise and obey the
rational capacity gives us derived from reason alone. categorical imperative — we
inherent dignity and worth. are both subject to and author
of the moral law.
7 Deontology vs. Other Frameworks
Understanding how deontology compares to other ethical frameworks is essential for the exam — you must
be able to apply each lens to a scenario and identify its distinguishing features.
FE AT URE D E ON TOLOGY ( K AN T ) CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM VIRT UE E T HICS
Core focus Rules / duties Outcomes / Character of the agent
consequences
Key question "What is my duty?" "What produces best "Who should I be?"
results?"
Basis Rational moral law Utility / welfare Virtuous character
Role of Irrelevant Central Context-dependent
consequences
Flexibility Rigid — rules are absolute Flexible but outcome- Context-sensitive
focused
Role of Must act from duty — Irrelevant Important — virtuous person
emotion/motive motive matters feels rightly
8 Deontology in Business Ethics
Rights-Based Thinking
Deontology supports the idea that people have fundamental rights that cannot be violated even for good
outcomes:
Right to privacy
Right to honest information
Right to fair treatment
Right not to be deceived or manipulated
Corporate Applications
T RUT HFUL ADV ERT IS IN G
Deceiving consumers treats them as means only → wrong regardless of profit outcome
→ Impermissible under deontology
EMPLOY EE RIG H TS
Workers cannot be exploited purely for profit — they have inherent dignity as rational agents
→ Exploitation is impermissible
WHI ST LE BLOWIN G
If you have a duty of honesty, you may be obligated to report wrongdoing regardless of consequences to
yourself
→ Duty-bound action
CON T RACTS
Must be honoured because breaking promises cannot be universalised (contradiction in conception)
→ Perfect duty to keep promises
The Limits of "The Ends Justify the Means"
Deontology directly challenges consequentialist business reasoning:
"We lied to the client but it closed the deal" → treating clients as means → impermissible
"We cut corners on safety to save costs" → violates workers' rights → impermissible
Even if profits increase, duties and rights cannot be sacrificed.
9 Strengths & Criticisms
ST RE NGT HS C R IT IC I SM S
Protects individual rights — prevents Absolute rules cause problems — never lie,
exploitation even when it would produce good even to a murderer? → counterintuitive
outcomes conclusions
Clear and consistent — universal rules provide Conflicts between duties — what if "do not lie"
predictable moral guidance clashes with "protect innocent life"? Kant
offers little guidance
Respects human dignity — every person has
inherent worth, not just instrumental value Ignores consequences entirely — right even if
it causes catastrophic harm
Motivation matters — emphasises acting from
genuine duty, not self-interest Too rigid — real moral situations are complex
and context-sensitive
Non-consequentialist — prevents "ends justify
means" reasoning Formalism — CI can be applied to justify
almost anything with clever enough
formulation
Doesn't account for special relationships —
treats strangers and loved ones identically
10 Key Terms to Know
Deontology Ethical framework focused on rules, duties, and obligations — not outcomes
or character
Categorical Imperative Kant's supreme moral law — unconditional, universal, and derived from
reason alone
Universal Law Formula Act only on maxims you could will to become universal laws without
contradiction
Humanity Formula Treat persons always as ends in themselves, never merely as means
Kingdom of Ends Imagine a community of rational beings; act consistently with its rules as both
lawmaker and subject
Good Will The only unconditionally good thing; acting from duty for duty's sake alone
has moral worth
Perfect Duty Absolute obligation, no exceptions — e.g., do not lie, do not murder
Imperfect Duty Obligatory but with discretion in how/when fulfilled — e.g., help others,
develop your talents
Autonomy Rational self-governance; the capacity to give oneself the moral law — the
basis of human dignity
Hypothetical Imperative Conditional command: "If you want X, do Y" — NOT moral law for Kant
11 Quick Revision Checklist
Can you state all three formulations of the Categorical Imperative in your own words?
Can you explain the difference between acting in accordance with duty vs. acting from duty?
Can you distinguish perfect from imperfect duties with examples?
Can you apply the Universal Law Formula to a business scenario (e.g., deceptive advertising)?
Can you explain why Kant says consequences are irrelevant to moral worth?
Can you list 2 strengths AND 2 weaknesses of deontology?
Can you compare deontology to consequentialism and virtue ethics?
Exam strategy: In case-based questions, the key move for deontology is to:
Step 1: Identify the maxim behind the action
Step 2: Universalise it and check for contradiction (in conception or in will)
Step 3: Check whether persons are being treated as ends or merely as means
