Talk:Deontology

message: perhaps this should be deontologic ethics instead, and this page should be about deontology in general, ie. also about deontologic logic just like the teleology page isn't just about teleologic ethics? --Tmh 22:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Currently, the 3rd paragraphs includes the sentence: "Much of definitions on deontological ethics is found in an ancient Tamil literature Thirukural, which is believed to be written in between 300 BCE and 5th century CE. ". This is a bit misleading, as according to the Thirukural wiki page, this text is about virtues, not about deontological ethics and most definitely not about any definitions. In addition, the sentence itself is ungrammatical. Perhaps this sentence should be removed. 193.40.12.10 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove reference to Thirukural in the 3rd paragraph 

message: Ayn Rand is not a recognized philosopher.  The criticisms leveled here amount to little more than a Nietzschean screed, and as such should be put in the mouth of Nietzsche, if included at all. 66.130.41.29 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ditch Rand criticisms 

message: Well, I took all the old criticisms of Kant's Categorical Imperative from that page, and put them in here, since one of the main arguments for deleting them in toto was that they belonged here rather than there.  I do not think that all of these criticisms are equally important, but I do think that it is important the more important ones be addressed SOMEWHERE.  Rewritten, perhaps, but not ignored.  WhiteC 18:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Kant 

message: Hi everyone.  I'm a Wiki amateur, but I know a fair bit about deontology...I studied it with the Shelly Kagan of the article.  I just did some major cleanup, and I tried to keep it NPOV both with respect to the consequentialism/deontology debate and the details on Kant are relevant / details on Kant are irrelevant debate.  I think this page needs some more meat...basically what it's got is a rough dictionary definition and a quick history of people who agreed or disagreed with it.  Can we add anything about the broader significance of deontological ethics, maybe in terms of military history or current bioethics debates or something?  Let's brainstorm.
130.132.231.50 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The cleanup looks much better.  Perhaps an illustrative example or two would be good.  Duty to country -v- duty to commanding officer... I'm thinking of that movie (whose name I forget - 'Perfect Duty'?) with Jack Kinnison as the commander at the military base in Guantanamo Bay.  I'm not sure which US law or amendment this involves.  As far as bioethics goes, are you talking about duty to the unborn ?  WhiteC 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup Edits 

message: I note that an IP editor purged Rand's statements about Kant from the criticism section. Regardless of one's personal opinions on objectivism, her criticisms are relevant and should not be unilaterally purged with no consensus gathering. If I am missing a larger protracted debate on this matter, by all means fill me in. - WeniWidiWiki 17:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purging of Rand 

message: there should be specific real world examples for every abstract statement included in the article, philiosophical discourse, must always strive to be clear and grounded relating concepts to scenarios in reality. 43trey643 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific real world examples 

message: Shelly Kagan, a current professor of philosophy at Yale University, notes in support of Mill and Bentham that under deontology, individuals are bound by constraints (such as the requirement not to murder), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). His line of attack on deontology is first to show that constraints are invariably immoral, and then to show that options are immoral without constraints.
In every Wikipedia article, there is a paragraph that makes so little sense, but appeals to such authority, that no one is man enough to delete it.  That's what I'd call the above.  Some guy had an opinion once, and someone wrote one sentence about it, and it didn't work.  Anyway, all I'm really saying is I have no idea what that paragraph says, and I don't think anyone else does either.--Mrcolj 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know exactly what it says. It happens to be wrong and grossly misinterprets Kant, so it doesn't matter. 72.144.198.53 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The meaning and intent seem reasonably clear to me, as well.  (Eek, I just posted a "me too" to wikipedia!)  I suspect if user Mrcol revisits this part of the article later, s/he will also find it more tractable than when Mrcol originally read it with eyes beginning to glaze over.  We all have moments like that.  Since I am more subject to such moments than most other folks (due to medical affliction), the fact that I didn't glaze over while reading the quote serves as a useful barometer.  In other words, if even I understand its meaning, then it probably means something.  (Rightness/wrongness of its meaning is, of course, a completely separate matter.)  69.17.65.50 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shelly Kagan

message: Dear readers: I noticed that this article was tagged for lack of sourcing. I added a plain vanilla dictionary definition of deontology, with a citation. I hasten to add that I have no discernable specialized knowledge of this subject (this is, after all, Wikipedia). Someone else can probably come up with a better definition, but a replacement should also be sourced. Yours, Famspear 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial definition changed

message: This article is missing one of the biggest deontological ethics in the world: the non-aggression principle. Murray Rothbard derived it from self-ownership, while Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. The former led to natural law libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, while the latter led to objectivism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'the non-agression principle' is not a 'deontological ethics'. It need not even be regarded as a deontological principle, as it could be supported by consequesntialist/teleological ethics. Anarchia 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Aggression Principle 

message: The article mentions a book called 'Is Deontology Right for Me?' by Robert Courage. This should be removed. No such book exists, as far as Google knows.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.214.83 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Is Deontology Right for Me' does not exist. 

message: From opening Wiki article: 
"Deontological ethics or deontology is an approach to ethics that holds that acts are inherently good or evil, regardless of the consequences of the acts."
From opening of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 
"Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped... a deontologist [will point to] the fact that in doing so, the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as 'Do unto others as you would be done by'" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/)
Deontology, considered an "approach" asin the Wiki opener, can be shown to be logically inequivalent to what is at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil website.
To change the Wiki opener, in order to be consistent with what is at Stanford, in this an MANY places, will necessitate a major revision of the whole.
Either citations are needed all over, and then a restriction that limits the spin of "deontology" in the current Wiki perspective to be the spin of a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, with at least a passing reference the the alternative at Stanford, or a major revision of the entire article is needed.
I personally would change the Stanford Article, before changing the Wiki article, but "Wiki Standards" necessitate citations referenced to Stanford, or another reliable source, and no "original research" (translated - "citationless assertions inconsistent with approved reliable reseources, like the more-poorly-worded-than-Wiki Stanford article). ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Whole Article is Inconsistent with Definitions of "Deontology" at Stanford Encycl Phil

message: Perhaps this article or project might investigate the concepts in Talk:Scientific_method#No_Discussion_of_Chinese_or_Asian_Contributions_to_Science. What is emerging is a 2400-year-old precursor to the current Western viewpoint. Specifically, Chris Fraser's SEP article on Mohist canons lists  4 Mohist principles
#Morality (yi, also “duty”)
#Benefit (li) is what is moral or right 
#Kindness (ren, or benevolence)
#Care (ai, or love) -- as in ai Hua  = 'love China' (Hua = 華)
That's what impelled me to reach out to this readership: I could just imagine 1 billion voices
*yi Hua 
*li Hua 
*ren Hua 
*ai Hua 
The relevant links are on the talk page listed above.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohist canons 

message: While I hate to interrupt the all night dorm-room philosophical bull session above, please allow me to address the RfC topic.  Both the Divine Command Theory (DCT) and the Non-Agression Principle (with the apt acronym NAP) are deontological as they are expressed in the article.  The confusion above (as best I can tell from reading the first half - didn't care to get through all of it) is arising because you all have forgotten that any theory of ethics contains an intentional component, and any ethics theoretician is trying to set up normative standards for intention as much as normative standards for behavior.  So, with respect to the DCT, the theory clearly intends to suggest that people treat God's commands as inherently right for no other reason than that God commanded them.  One could turn it into a teleological theory by claiming, instead, that one should treat God's commands as inherently right so that one can get into heaven; One could turn it into an aretaic theory by claiming that one should treat God's commands as inherently right because it is the quality of a virtuous man to do so.  But the goal of the various authors who put this idea forth (as I understand them) is to guide people away from the teleological and aretaic intention-structures towards deontological intention-structures.  
The same, incidentally, applies to Aristotle's theory.  Eudemonia was not the goal of his ethics, it was a consequence.  Aristotle would not have considered someone who pursued happiness as a goal to be virtuous; he would suggest that living a life of arete would produce happiness without further effort.  --Ludwigs2 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: Consider this quote from the article:
However, there is a difference between deontological ethics and moral absolutism.[5] Deontologists who are also moral absolutists believe that some actions are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them. Immanuel Kant, for example, argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e.g. "I will lie", then their action is wrong, even if some good consequences come of it. Non-absolutist deontologists, such as W. D. Ross, hold that the consequences of an action such as lying may sometimes make lying the right thing to do.
If the preceding quote is accurate, then clearly we have deontologists (e.g. Kant) who are moral absolutists, and others (e.g. Ross) who aren't.  Supposing, for the moment, that all moral absolutists are deontologists, it makes perfectly good sense to discuss moral absolutism as a subdivision of deontology.  Yet it would only take one example of a moral absolutist who is not a deontologist to break that supposition.  And it shouldn't be too far to look to find one!
So I conclude that only (further) confusion can result from combining the two articles.  yoyo (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another response to the Rfc 

message: I'm not at all happy with the first sentence which defines deontology as an approach to morality grounded in rules. Utilitarians do exactly this ('the greatest happiness for the geatest number') yet are the complete opposite of being deontology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.165.142 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. (I have broken out your bold phrase First sentence as a sub-heading.)  yoyo (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Someone else put the merge tag on that article, which is more of an essay, but I would agree that Duties and deontological ethics needs to either be merged into here or deleted, as it appears the topic can better be dealt with here. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Duties and deontological ethics]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Deontological ethics →  – As you can see from NGRAMS and Google Scholar results, "deontology" is much more common term for this concept, also being more concise. The Google Scholar and Google Books results make it clear that the word "deontology" pretty much exclusively refers to the school of ethics. "Deontology" already redirects to this article. (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree. "Deontology" should be the main title and "Deontological ethics" should redirect there. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Support, but note that the SEP article is titled "Deontological Ethics". (There may be a reason.) Srnec (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: SEP I assume is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Yes, but that's to do with the way they categorise their articles... the URL note uses the phrase ethics-deontological rather than either. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 July 2021