Is Kantian Deontology Convincing?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will be showing that Kantian Deontology is not a convincing normative
ethical theory because of three key reasons. Firstly because conflicts between duties will arise and it
shows that duties aren’t absolute. Secondly, the Categorical Imperative is not a good way to make maxims
and lastly and most crucially I will show that Kantian Deontology has failed to show that morality is
categorical which is one of its key claims.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Deontology is not convincing because there could arise a situation in which two absolute
perfect duties clash. For example if you promised to keep a secret to friend and then another friend asked
you about that secret - you would be conflicted with the absolute duties of not lying and keeping the
secret. Absolute duties are ones we must do with no exceptions and nothing can override the moral duty
because morality is categorical - which means we can’t opt out of morality. If this is the case then in the
scenario stated above then whatever action we do we will break an absolute duty which is not allowed
under Kantian Deontology and therefore it turns contradictory.
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be permissible to
lie eg to save a life or to preserve a promise. Less important duties can give way to more important ones
and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more
convincing as it is more realistic and adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in
general.
E: There to understand duties as absolute is a severe weakness of Kantian Deontology. This is crucial
because it undermines the idea that we must do duties with an inability to opt which is a key aspect in
Kantian Deontology
RICE 2:
R: The Categorical Imperative is not convincing and doesn't show us convincingly what is moral and what
is not. A central idea of Kantian Deontology is to ‘act only on that maim through which you can at the
same time will it should become a universal law’ - the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It is
why we e.g ‘don't steal’ is a maxim because we cannot universalise stealing as it leads to a self-
contradictory scenario. However Kant isn’t really correct with this because we can find scenarios in which
there are universalisable maxims which don’t seem morally correct. For example, if I was really struggling
financially and needed food and shelter urgently and so I decide to con people by borrowing money
promising to repay it but never intending to keep that promise. Whilst just ‘breaking promises’ is a maxim
that is not universalisable, the maxim here is much more specific ‘Making a promise I don’t intend to keep
only in dire circumstances’ and therefore is universalisable. This is because the case would apply so
rarely that there wouldn’t be a breakdown of the concept of promise-keeping and promise-making would
not be impossible if universalised and therefore there isn’t a self-contradictory scenario and therefore is
Is Kantian Deontology Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will be showing that Kantian Deontology is not a convincing normative
ethical theory because of three key reasons. Firstly because conflicts between duties will arise and it
shows that duties aren’t absolute. Secondly, the Categorical Imperative is not a good way to make maxims
and lastly and most crucially I will show that Kantian Deontology has failed to show that morality is
categorical which is one of its key claims.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Deontology is not convincing because there could arise a situation in which two absolute
perfect duties clash. For example if you promised to keep a secret to friend and then another friend asked
you about that secret - you would be conflicted with the absolute duties of not lying and keeping the
secret. Absolute duties are ones we must do with no exceptions and nothing can override the moral duty
because morality is categorical - which means we can’t opt out of morality. If this is the case then in the
scenario stated above then whatever action we do we will break an absolute duty which is not allowed
under Kantian Deontology and therefore it turns contradictory.
I: If we understood Kantian Ethics we will find that a real conflict of duties can never occur. Consider the
example stated - it is a false dichotomy - you could simply tell the friend that the other friend told you to
keep it a secret and therefore you won’t tell them and so you were never compelled to lie and so there is
no conflict of duties. There appeared to be a conflict because we misunderstood what at least one duty
required of us. Because of duties are absolute we have to be careful when formulating them to avoid them
conflict. Rather then having just ‘don’t lie’ as a duty our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a
life’ which avoids conflict. Therefore issue is resolved and you can always do your absolute duty
C: But in reality, it is much more realistic and simplistic to say that most duties are not absolute rather then
forcing them to be absolute and formulating absolute duties carefully. For instance considering the same
scenario we still have the duty to not lie but because it would not be absolute, it would be permissible to
lie eg to save a life or to preserve a promise. Less important duties can give way to more important ones
and so if there is such ‘conflict’ one will give way and no longer be a duty in that situation. This is more
convincing as it is more realistic and adaptable to scenarios - a severe lacking of Kantian Ethics in
general.
E: There to understand duties as absolute is a severe weakness of Kantian Deontology. This is crucial
because it undermines the idea that we must do duties with an inability to opt which is a key aspect in
Kantian Deontology
RICE 2:
R: The Categorical Imperative is not convincing and doesn't show us convincingly what is moral and what
is not. A central idea of Kantian Deontology is to ‘act only on that maim through which you can at the
same time will it should become a universal law’ - the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It is
why we e.g ‘don't steal’ is a maxim because we cannot universalise stealing as it leads to a self-
contradictory scenario. However Kant isn’t really correct with this because we can find scenarios in which
there are universalisable maxims which don’t seem morally correct. For example, if I was really struggling
financially and needed food and shelter urgently and so I decide to con people by borrowing money
promising to repay it but never intending to keep that promise. Whilst just ‘breaking promises’ is a maxim
that is not universalisable, the maxim here is much more specific ‘Making a promise I don’t intend to keep
only in dire circumstances’ and therefore is universalisable. This is because the case would apply so
rarely that there wouldn’t be a breakdown of the concept of promise-keeping and promise-making would
not be impossible if universalised and therefore there isn’t a self-contradictory scenario and therefore is
Is Kantian Deontology Convincing? 1
