Deontology | Ethics Defined

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to discern the moral course of action. This video is part of Ethics Defined, an animated library of more than 50 ethics terms and concepts from Ethics Unwrapped, available at ethicsunwrappe...
For free videos and teaching resources on ethics and leadership, visit ethicsunwrapped...
Ethics Unwrapped is a free online educational program produced by the Center for Leadership and Ethics at The University of Texas at Austin. It offers an innovative approach to introducing complex ethics topics that is accessible to both students and instructors. For more videos, case studies, and teaching materials, visit ethicsunwrapped...
A complete playlist of Ethics Unwrapped videos available on KZbin may be found at: bit.ly/2lzF71u
© 2017 The University of Texas at Austin. All Rights Reserved.

[@smsakib6296]

two minutes were more effective than the 1-hour lecture at my university.

[@clutchclutch13]

More effective at keeping your attention? Maybe. More effective at teaching ethical philosophy? No. This video is a incomplete and misleading.

[@colinca9004]

@@clutchclutch13 tell me the meaning if it's 'misleading'.

[@clutchclutch13]

​@@colinca9004I mean, my favorite activity is explaining things to KZbin commenters 4 months after the fact, so sure. Deontology, like most ethical philosophy, is relatively complex. Must more than simply "following rules" the bulk of the philosophical work is in how the rules are made, specifically with what ethics in mind. This is, in fact, the very crux of Deontology. That's why it is misleading to say that it is essentially "following rules". This filters into the catagorical imperitive, which can be understood as a sort of universal way to figure out what actions to take, based on abstracting actions to basic, universal premises. That's why this video is misleading. Without a deeper understanding of Kant's work and/or the context surrounding the idea, someone can walk away with the idea that Deontology is simply following rules, instead of realizing that the meat of the concept is in figuring out what rules to follow.

[@billyvalentine4365]

Jesus. Thank you. Why can't educators be this simple and direct instead of convoluting everything in order to appear intelligent?

[@White_Breeder]

Because then they would actually have to be competent educators, not champagne socialist activists

[@billyvalentine4365]

But I like champagne, socialism, and cute activist grrls.@@White_Breeder

[@clutchclutch13]

Honestly? Because this is a very incomplete and misleading summary of some really important and foundational works in modern ethical thinking. Educators can be simple and direct about 2+2 or how to spell "quixotic" They cannot teach complex, nuanced subjects like ethics and philosophy the same way. Not to say it can't be taught poorly, perhaps by a windbag professor with a superiority complex. But this teaching is poor quality too.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

@@clutchclutch13 You save me the trouble of saying it. Thanks.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

The explanation given by this video is 100% false. Kant's deontological ethics : 1 - Deontology tell you to listen to your HEART (to find the right thing, the decent, the correct thing to do) and MOST IMPORTANTLY, do it for the sake of doing the right thing and not because it will be beneficial to you. ( it can be beneficial to you, but that can't be the main reason why you consider it to be right ) 1:06 So the nuclear missile thing, could easily end up being, hacking illegally and cancelling the launch. And that would be DEONTOLOGY at its best. 2 - Deontology is NOT about following basic rules blindly. Absolutely not! 1:36 3. Deontology asks each and everyone to search inside oneself. Put effort into trying to separate self interest from the right thing to do, and do the latter. There is nothing easy about it. It is the only moment one can say a man applies FREE WILL. When it uses the GOLDEN RULE guideline (not the literal silly interpretation of what the GOLDEN RULE is) to search inside your soul and find your best self, the correct and decent thing to do and then regardless of consequences, go and do it. THAT is DEONTOLOGY. There is absolutely nothing harder for a person to do. Some say, it is the only moment in life when you actually exist is when you are applying DEONTOLIGICAL actions, all other times you are simply dead wood floating down the river like everyone else.

[@InfiniteHappiness]

Never thought I would get that easy! Thanks a lot. I saved lots of time 😗

[@29111989nitish]

simple and easy to understand...grt job

[@jrich7277]

Thank you, I think this will help with my business ethics assignment.

[@noberto3784]

Business ethics? so like not being successful?

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

@@noberto3784 What a moronic take on ethics. Lemme guess... you think big government is peak ethics.

[@Basieeee]

Thank God there is an easy explaination

[@dannat.7175]

Very understandable explanation!!! 💯❤️

[@charlesngerem3198]

Beautiful video

[@dumanliveshere]

that was incredibly easy to follow and understand.

[@Defenestration_of_Prague]

Okay, idk if anyone knows Run the Jewels, but...is there song “Lie, Cheat, Steal” a reference to Emmanuel Kant??

[@ajamitverma2403]

So well explained. Thank you ✅

[@kadez3018]

jesus christ thank you so much for this, very easy to understand

[@jewelamadi]

Thank you so much lord. Thanks a lot i know understand.

[@thabangroberto6754]

Easy to follow. Thank you

[@dayzura7706]

Thank you for the easy definition

[@ayen1719]

Thank you for helping me.

[@andzuo]

I'm now soo torn between Utilitarianism and Duty Ethics, what do you think is the best ethical framework?

[@justus4684]

Threshold deontology

[@mayswathford]

Rule utilitarianism

[@sgvaldehueza]

deontology

[@boysteacher3818]

Paperclip Maximization

[@brandonbrown3082]

I think "do not kill" should be added into these rules, if they haven't already. Which, in a perfect world, there would be 0 reason to lie in the example given, if the other party did not kill(launch a nuclear missle) and if that was the case, and this was a perfect world, then we wouldnt come in contact with these rules. If the rules were "do not kill, do not lie, etc." Then that wouldn't happen if everyone followed those rules. The fact is, it's not a perfect world, and people step out this "moral code" which in turn, I think, would require the other party to step outside the rules. Small example: if the rule was to fight with paper swords, but someone brings a metal sword out, and you must fight, then you too would have to bring out a metal sword, regardless of the rules.

[@WildernessMedic]

Thank you. Stupid example.... a general rule of preserving innocent human life would take precedence. You would think...

[@Catsincages]

You didn't understand what was being said then. 🤦🏻‍♀

[@CheeseCrumbs00]

​@@WildernessMedic Agreed, it should not be about following 'the rules' but instead doing what is right regardless of the situation

[@latedinn]

that example got wild at the end

[@tatendamagada6138]

Thank you very much , for clear explanation

[@LT1serj]

To the point. Thumbs up

[@codyrutherford2404]

Love this! Yay!

[@tijomathew3119]

great job 🔥 snapped

[@bilal-lp7kq]

Thanks alot it really helps me

[@wonder7798]

What if you applied both simultaneously?

[@taylah1401]

this is very helpful 😇

[@ekoi1995]

killing is bad, there are peaceful ways to solve conflict :3 if the enemy still acts hostile, defend yourself

[@halguy5745]

nothing is objectively bad. killing innocent people is bad, killing in self defense when you're about to be killed is not

[@ekoi1995]

@@halguy5745 so it's better to be killed

[@imdadjeshin]

great video

[@basundharamondal2262]

It is very easy to understand.i like the vdo

[@nidamalagueno3254]

Hey! Thank you for making this video. Its understandable.

[@amvCBG]

Deontology has a lot more than just Kantian ethics. It's about rules and duties and that can be more than just don't kill. It can be like don't have sex before marriage or it is a wife's moral duty to stay at home. Those things. It can refer to any moral based rule system. Such as ethical naturalism, divine command theory, etc

[@ashley7320]

well both of those are mysoginistic so I think its safe to say the world isnt black and white anymore

[@kostakako4997]

are u retarded, 'don't have sex before marriage' is not misogynistic

[@shirleyyap4888]

easy to understand, thank you 😍

[@acledm4474]

Great video THX

[@eddie2563]

who bought the battlepass?

[@notghettofilipino6356]

noice its easy to understand 👌

[@sufyanshaikh9063]

Thank you, Helped Alot!

[@silentdrowning]

This is a problematic definition. Nice attempt though, but it needs a slightly larger discussion to be adequate. The consideration on consequences is built into the universal moral assumptions, deontology absolves consequences, involving suffering or any other competing moral dilemmas, by a reasoning through a moral heirarchy.

[@peanutbutter1752]

Was hoping as well if you could explain it a little bit more?

[@raindropsofsky]

I will not violate ethics, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, human rights, protocols , table manners and any other legal bodies.

[@ashwinikhaire8913]

Thanks

[@freahanndaselio4940]

Good day ! Your explanation about deontology was very nice, It help me to understand more about it. ♥️ Anyways can I borrow your clips for my project ? I will give you a proper credits for using it po ☺️ Thank you in advance, Have a nice day !

[@noobgameplays235]

I also

[@atollking201]

I really believe that this moral views are each and everyone of them incomplete by themselves. I mean, it's illogical to say that consequentialism and deontology are complete and, thus, the right way to proceed because they obviously fail when faced by certain moral dilemmas. Actions and consequences by themselves are insufficient to arrive to a satisfactory resolution of the dilemma, instead, we should be trying to reach a middle point and I believe that middle point is based on the circumstances in which the dilemma takes place. For example, in the example of the bomb, everyone will agree that hacking the computer was not improper, it was the right thing to do.

[@jtveg]

Indeed, morality and ethics are very complicated and there is not one single method that can resolve all dilemmas. That's why as a society we should take the best parts of every system and method and refine and improve our moral and ethical framework to ensure consistency, equality and maximise fairness to all. Sometimes we may not know the best solution to a dilemma but we can still clearly see which courses of action are better than others.

[@god5535]

Would you depopulate the world with vaccine and kill millions to sustain Earth's ecosystem? Asking for a friend...

[@jtveg]

@@god5535 You obviously don't understand what vaccines are, what they do, what they are intended for, or how they work, in order to ask such a stupid question. Ps. Calling oneself "god" shows a high level of imagined self importance and extreme arrogance. Didn't you already depopulate the world once with a flood? How did that turn out for you?

[@god5535]

@@jtveg When a person takes life too seriously, he either dies of heart attack or anal up-tightness. μαλάκα

[@jtveg]

​@@god5535 Είσαι γιατρός? Asking for a friend. Those that have no argument resort to insults. Lol.

[@nicholasikwueme8590]

amazing

[@TheInnerPact]

In this example, a software engineer would never find themselves in this position, whether the preceding step used the same principle.

[@imperatorbaydonious3666]

Categorical imperative

[@iansalvador]

1:31 it could get to millions depending on the warhead

[@antonhelsgaun]

Or billions bruh

[@elnoruego6854]

@@antonhelsgaun maybe not billions for now, you'd have to have a missile much greater than an oil tanker for that.

[@antonhelsgaun]

@@elnoruego6854 unless said missile starts a nuclear war

[@elnoruego6854]

@@antonhelsgaun Did he not specify that it depended on the warhead

[@mtcondie]

Why did the German chicken cross the road? IT WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS! lol.

[@andrewdornan587]

Kind of a misrepresentation with your example... as a deontologist there's also the commandment thou shalt not kill. Watch the movie watchmen... Rorscharch is a deontologist vs. Ozzymandias who's a determinist tell me who was right

[@pyro9818]

It depends. If someone was about to kill my family member or someone I deeply care about, that rule is out the window. I’m going to shoot them before they can shoot one of mine. You wouldn’t do the same?

[@dylanoreonpena5539]

THANKS hehehe it is Clear now.

[@JadMock]

Who defines it as ethical. Who sets the rules. We as sheep do as we are told because that is all we have ever known

[@noobgameplays235]

1 subscriber for you well explained video thank you :)

[@reallifefaith]

This isn't really accurate. Deontology does not release one from decision-making and interpretation. Applying, for instance, Kant's imperative requires one to consider what behavior one would want to be universalized. In the same way, following religious maxims is never free from interpretation and application.

[@joannesmith7744]

Now imagine not being allowed to tell the truth( following ethical rules) as the truth offends someone( harm) . Not being allowed to share data that puts a group in a more negative light? Even though the data can be used to make better change?

[@JALILUMARIAMLARRY]

Am here for exams 😭😭😭

[@Michael-AC]

I'm starting to think that people that like to point out the obvious shortcomings of deontology might just be lazy and/or bad at prioritizing. If philosophy was an open and closed book, we wouldn't still be having discussions today. It's so weird to me that people just assume Kant didn't know how to think for himself or something.

[@EpicBeard815]

great explanation, but conflating the ethical imperative of deontology with professional expectations is a bit disingenuous.

[@silentdrowning]

Lol. Yup. Professional expectation is to acknowledge an ascent to a moral hierarchy, built up by rules, even while your pursuit of profit necessarily must undermine it.

[@raindropsofsky]

It is not always wrong to violate ethics, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, human rights, protocols, table manners and any other legal bodies in the universe.

[@finvknownmuslim]

good video. however actually it wont remove subjectivity. no objective obligation whatsoever to follow this rules. still subjective moral theory

[@antonhelsgaun]

>starts nuclear war > _thousands_ of people will die

[@staciwashington3212]

It seems to me an oversimplification. But what do I know these days? It seems I'm a utilitarian consequentialist by accusation and my husband a deontologist, what's new? I don't know. I'm just a black woman that fell in love with a white man (okay, we happen to be philosophers), but societies hatred of "mixed racers" continues to try and put an end to our love on not only theological, but philosophical grounds and it's killing me.

[@Brascofarian]

Much like KZbin's autocorrect, I've never really understood deontology. What's so special about rules? Anyone can come up with rules, it doesn't mean they should be followed. It just doesn't seem like it is rooted in anything meaningful, anyone with a pen, paper and clipboard can claim to have made an ethical code and use deontology as an excuse to avoid having to explain why these rules are ethical. The list says so, so it must be. I swear it was only ever created to justify religion as ethical.

[@elbownio5820]

So it's pretending that rules are real?

[@rubenmborges]

This doesn't explain where the rules come from.

[@АртемПаршин-г5м]

missles can not be canceled🥸

[@Cheerios100]

I consider myself more of a deontologist compared to a consequentialist because the consequences don't matter that much. For example, I think that attempted first-degree murder should have the same punishment as first-degree murder. I don't think that consequentialist logic makes much sense because their logic would imply that all murder and manslaughter should be punished the same because they all result in someone dying and that attempted murder shouldn't be punished. The one exception though is if someone threatens your life because they have given up you treating them as a human after the killer decided it was ok to take someone else's life. For example, self-defense is morally permissable because the person attacking you has infringed upon your liberty and the second someone threatens your life, you have the full right to remove the threat in any way because that person attacking you has agreed to losing their life to save the innocent person's life after they tried to kill someone. The moment where someone decides to take someone else's life is the moment where the killer gives up their right to life if it means saving the innocent person. It's unreasonable to expect people to value a killer's life over one that they threatened to kill. In your example, it would be morally permissable to hack the computer as that's self-defense of a third party. I believe that if someone threatens your or another person's life, you have the full right to do anything to the other person that can stop the threat. If they chose to launch a missle, they also agree to getting their missile destroyed in any way possible to save someone's life or possibly killed to stop the missle launch.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

remember that god is dead and every entity is mortal.

[@jdhenge]

Everyone has a moral duty not to murder. It is not murder to kill someone who is going to commit murder. Why do you let children write these videos?

[@TheYeahman308]

This lacks information. If talking about life and death the ethics of stopping millions of people is not a problem. If killing to save killing then it is a problem.

[@Dominatetowin]

finnnnna bruhsterdam

[@hakimabouchelaghem194]

🥰

[@BigSlabEnergy]

1:04 what in the actual fuck is up with that index finger tho....

[@BigSlabEnergy]

shits longer than LeBron Jame's peen

[@dragon5064]

.

[@OliverSmyth]

🏢✈️🏢

[@noobietheprotutorials9976]

U did it all wrong

[@noobietheprotutorials9976]

🛫🏢🏢

[@OliverSmyth]

👨🏻‍🦳👍🏻👨🏿‍💼

[@ItHadToBeSaid]

Sounds like a very weak ethical practice. "Just follow the rules" NO. QUESTION the rules and the ppl and the institutions making and enforcing the rules.

[@pepeloco2008]

KNAT hahahaha

[@targetmycarpet5952]

So not correct

[@bigbad123321]

What a ridiculous philosophy to live by

[@capncook667]

Not really

[@arttimegrease1616]

50 50 for me

[@Sealwithwificonnection]

How so?

[@bigbad123321]

​@@SealwithwificonnectionIn this example millions of people will die because you're following your rules. It's too rigid