Discussion of Deontological Ethic

One critique of Kantian ethics that Dr. Nash discussed in the lecture was the conflict of duties. According to Kant, some moral responsibilities cannot have precedence over others. However, this is clearly a reality people face every day: ranking duties.

Perhaps one way to looking at how it relates to the principle of universality. Kant insists that a moral statement must be universally applicable to everyone, regardless of sex, race, color, creed, or veteran status. However, the notion that some duties should take precedence over others dares turn universal morality into something more relativistic. Kant's black and white rules become varied shades as an individual's circumstance plays a large part in determining what is or is not moral.

One example of this sort of problem arising is how Christians approach the moral obligation for a person to obey a God-given authority. Some Christians would prefer a universal application, saying that this rule is to never be broken regardless of the terrible situation someone might be in. Others would argue that, since rules have to be universal, this rule cannot be imposed at any time because hypothetical circumstances exist where obeying the authority would be immoral. Both of these views appear very Kantian.

A non-Kantian alternative would be to accept the idea that duty to God takes precedence over duty to a God-given authority. Hence, when the individual's circumstances show no conflict between the two, both duties can, and should, be met. However, when the individual's circumstances reveal a conflict, the morally upright thing to do would be to fulfill the duty to God at the expense of fulfilling the duty to another person.