Moral Theory

I. The battle of determining what is right and what is wrong and how that can be universally applied to all rational beings has been a never-ending search for the missing puzzle piece that will expose the big picture. Although we may never find that piece, we can make the best possible solution with the pieces that we have. There are several different moral theories and many of them do not contain enough generalizations, or enough specifications, and/or sacrifice the livelihood of other rational beings. Although these theories provide some great insight, there is one apart from these that is so well rounded it cannot be ignored. Deontology is an ethical theory that is the study of that which binds us or that which is binding upon us and that we are bound by duty or refrained from doing something. I will argue that Deontology is the most equipped theory that can address how rational beings are to distinguish and promote how to act within ourselves and to one another because of the determination of the purpose of a goodwill, the use of deducing a logical outcome based on reason, and the establishment of the purpose and value of our sense of duty. I will show how these determined ideas can address most if not all our actions and notions of what is right and how they can falter by influences that are internal and external.

II. To begin, the notion of what qualifies us to act ‘good’ can be easily identified, according to philosopher Immanuel Kant. It is the distinction of a goodwill, and it is the only subject that constitutes whether something is deservedly good for every rational being. Goodwill

is the only thing that acts without any qualifications unlike attributes of the mind that can be swayed and manipulated by the impulses of rational beings. Attributes, or as Kant labels them talents of the mind, are characteristics that are considered to be highly valued, even dubbed as gifts of nature, and can be possessed by even the most menacing. Although these characteristics, like courage, intelligence, and resilience, can be identified with someone who possesses a goodwill, they cannot be used to identify a person with a goodwill.

The goodwill is the conductor of true and pure happiness for every individual rational being, however, the music that is playing is tuned differently for every one of them. The idea of true happiness looks different for every person and cannot be a single shared blanket among all of humanity. This distinction directly challenges two of the main principles of utilitarian theory, where it is said that mankind is to promote the most good that benefits the most people and the distinction and use of pleasure and pain. We are not only subject to the happiness of our broader sense of community, and it cannot be claimed to be first priority above all others. We also have our own internal happiness and the happiness of those that are close to us. The umbrella of utility is prevalent in this ideology, but its covering was not big enough. We all are equipped with understanding our own definition of what is morally right or good for ourselves; we all have the ability to understand and determine what is morally good and right for people that are close to us; and we all have the understanding that we cannot deliberately neglect, by our own temptations or influences, like gifts of fortune consisting of wealth, status, and power, the unwavering natural responsibility we have to one another. It should be said that if by the pursuit of happiness, it causes the unjust, no one person can obtain true happiness, for it is weighed down by every thought that turns to stone of guilt and slowly falls to the darkest pit in one’s gut. Utilitarianism establishes that mankind solely pursues a life of pleasure and simultaneously avoids pain as an end. Doing what is right can be painful, and selfish desires can disguise as false happiness. Therefore, pain and pleasure are just factors that can also be manipulated and used internally or externally and can cloud a rational being’s use of reason, and not the two masters of our government.

III. Secondly, will alone does not determine its own actions taken. What is determined to drive our decisions of our will comes from our use of reason. Will is facilitated by the use of reason that can be valued and determined by every rational being, but reason is not a determining factor of will. Reason is our ability to think through problems logically, and many confuse reason with what we feel like doing instinctually, or our inclination. Reason is manifested in a variety of ways, through a priori, a posteriori, and/or universal rules that in itself is borrowed from experience. Reason is the power of understanding, and without reason we would not be equipped to achieve any type of understanding of our own experiences. Just as a parent equips their child with information that may become useful in their endeavors, however, one cannot fully replicate an exact replica of an experience. It is important to note that through deducing a logical outcome based on previous experience, it needs to be separated from any emotional compound that can influence the individual’s response. We have the ability to dismiss our own reason in an attempt to satisfy our own short-lived desires, and no other species possesses this choice. The use of reason is what is believed to be what sets us apart from any other species. Therefore, rational will is the master of how we determine how we are to act and how everyone should act, and a rational will will provide a constant and unbiased judgment regardless of good or bad intent.

IV. To further solidify my argument, our goodwill and reason are used with our sense of duty. W.D. Ross establishes that we are predisposed to follow prima facie duties. These are principles that can be universally applied to all rational beings without neglecting any other rational being. Prima facie duties are the various duties we follow; however, they vary in degree. There are duties out of obligation like, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, and do not lie. It would be wrong to kill a man for his kidney to save another, it would be wrong to say something happened with no claim as to its actual occurrence. These duties are in place to provide every rational being with a sense of well-being. It is also established that we have an internal sense of duty, like our duty of beneficence and self-improvement, we have our duty to others, and to our society and government. It is said that there is not an obligation of duty to promote happiness to another, but I disagree, by deliberately following these duties it is accepting the opposite of hurting or the cause of misfortune to someone would be to make them happy or satisfied.

V. With all of these points in mind, it is no doubt that they should be regarded as the governors of all of our experiences and all of our overall being. The presence and understanding of the goodwill cannot be denied, and it is external and internal static that can alleviate one from following a direct path. The logical use of reason accompanied with goodwill create a rational goodwill that can establish, fulfil, and promote the duties needed by the various degree. Deontology unweaves all the tangles of confusion into a simple format and addresses the many variations of the principles that can be applied in various contexts, qualifying it as the best moral theory.