Duty-Based Ethics: A Brief History and Its Applications
Ethics helps us decide how one ought to act when in a given situation. One of the ways to organize ethical thought into something beneficial is called an ethical framework. Here, I will shed light on one of the major ethical frameworks: duty-based ethics. In doing this, I will give a short account of its origins, and I aim to contrast the theoretical and practical applications of the ethical framework.
Before we get too far, allow me to define a key term: the ethical framework. An ethical framework is a way of organizing one’s thoughts into a system which can guide ethical decisions. In other words, ethical frameworks can help us think, but they cannot give us objectively correct answers. The duty-based framework says that some kinds of actions (i.e., those with poor intentions) are morally repugnant, regardless of their consequences. The framework holds that one should avoid these universally morally wrong actions because it is one’s duty to society, even if it produces negative consequences or no consequence at all.
To understand specific interpretations of duty-based ethics, let us examine the concept’s origins. The duty-based approach is most commonly associated with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), but the framework had adherents far before the 18th century. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) espoused the idea that something is good only if it is “in accordance with God’s will.” Essentially, Augustine claimed that actions taken when one’s will coincides with that of God are the only morally commendable actions. Much later, Kant argued that one should act “only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This is Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and it informs much of the duty-based approach even today. To illustrate Kant’s argument, consider the act of telling a lie. If we extended the maxim to become a universal law, we would have the statement “one should always lie.” Nobody would will this to become a universal law, so the Categorical Imperative deems lying to be morally reprehensible. Kant argues that it is our duty to act according to the maxims which we would universalize.
However, we must admit that theory is not everything. To expose the difference between theory and reality, let’s consider an example. Suppose I create a website which aggregates unwanted clothing and donates it to an undeveloped city in Africa. My intentions in creating the website are good: I am attempting to aid those in need. However, when the clothing is taken to the city, there becomes a surplus. Each citizen who previously made clothing for a living finds themselves without subsistence. Kantian duty-based ethics says that, because I had good intentions in making the website, my actions here are morally commendable.
One might argue that this is a problem with Kantian ethics and not duty-based ethics as a category. Nevertheless, with any sort of duty-based ethical theory, there will be some rule (i.e. independent of consequence) that produces negative consequences, thus producing a similar dilemma. Some would say this is a problem with duty-based ethics, and this might be true, but it should also be noted that every ethical framework has its weaknesses. Duty-based ethics argues that, by targeting an action itself and not the consequences of that action, we will find ourselves in the best possible scenario.
