Talk:Deontological ethics

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)

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: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Deontological ethics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress