3 Chapter 3: Duty Calls—Exploring Deontological Ethics

“The only thing that can be unreservedly deemed good, whether in the world or beyond it, is a good will [that is, our human capacity to act out of respect for moral law or duty, rather than out of self-interest or desire]. Mental abilities like intelligence, wit, and judgement, as well as qualities of character like courage, determination, and persistence, are no doubt valuable in many ways. But these natural talents can become harmful if used by a person with a bad will or character. The same goes for the gifts of life such as power, wealth, respect, health, and happiness. These can lead to pride and arrogance if not tempered by a good will, which can keep these influences in check and guide our actions towards a meaningful purpose. Seeing someone without any trace of a good will, yet constantly successful, would never bring joy to an unbiased, rational observer. Therefore, having a good will seems to be an essential prerequisite to be truly deserving of happiness.” (Immanuel Kant – The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals)

In this chapter, you’ll be summoned by duty to delve into the world of deontological ethics. This ethical theory, in sharp contrast to consequentialist ones like utilitarianism, posits that moral rightness or wrongness depends on factors other than the consequences of an action, such as intentions, the nature of the action itself, and individual duties and rights.

To bring deontological ethics to life, we open with a tale titled ‘The Golem’s Code’. Here, you’ll meet Clodsley, a unique golem with a moral awareness and an unwavering desire to be good. His adventures serve as an exploration of deontological principles in action. Complementing this narrative are discussion questions that invite you to delve deeper, fostering reflection, critical analysis, and greater comprehension of these ethical concepts.

In the ‘Big Ideas’ section, you’ll first encounter The Golden Rule, a universally recognized principle that serves as an elementary starting point in deontological thinking. This fundamental moral maxim will lay the groundwork for more complex ethical frameworks.

Following this, you’ll be introduced to the profound thinking of Immanuel Kant, a luminary in the world of deontological ethics. As we delve into Kantian ethics, we’ll address some of its most complex elements, such as the “Murder at the Door” problem, while examining Kant’s belief in the inherent goodness of the will and his renowned moral law, the categorical imperative.

As we continue, you’ll be introduced to Rossian Deontology, based on the ideas of W.D. Ross. His theory offers a pluralistic approach to deontological ethics, recognizing the existence of multiple, often conflicting, moral duties.

Story: The Golem’s Code (An Exploration of Deontology)

(With apologies to Terry Pratchett)

Once upon a time, in a world as flat as a pancake, but without any syrup on top, there lived a golem by the name of Clodsley. Golems were artificial creatures made of clay, brought to life by a series of words written on a piece of parchment and placed in their mouths. Clodsley was no different, except for his unusual love of philosophy and his unwavering desire to be good.

Now, Clodsley had been crafted by a talented yet rather eccentric wizard named Mordecai. Mordecai had an unconventional approach to life, which mostly involved brewing odd potions and inventing bizarre contraptions. One day, while trying to repair a malfunctioning device that converted the sound of flatulence into a calming breeze, Mordecai accidentally knocked an old book of philosophical ethics into Clodsley’s mouth, and was unable to get it out, however hard he tried. As a result, Clodsley became the first golem to possess moral awareness, and he made it his mission to be a paragon of goodness. In his pursuit of virtue, he chanced upon the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This seemed like a perfectly sensible approach to ethics, so Clodsley decided to adopt it as his guiding maxim.

At first, everything went swimmingly. Clodsley would go out of his way to help people, lend a hand or a sturdy clay limb, and generally make the world a better place. But then, he encountered a series of philosophical conundrums that began to muddy the once-clear waters of his morality. For example, Clodsley was a golem, which meant that he had no sense of taste or hunger. He wondered, if he were to follow the Golden Rule literally, should he stop offering food to humans, since he himself had no need for it? After much contemplation and a series of misadventures involving confused chefs and disgruntled diners, Clodsley realized that the Golden Rule wasn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Perhaps, he mused, it required some adjustments based on context and individual difference.

With this in mind, Clodsley set off on a philosophical journey to explore the various nuances of the Golden Rule. This took him to the far reaches of the world, from the bustling streets of Granite City to the ancient libraries of Uberwald. Along the way, he encountered met with many interesting denizens of the realm who offered their own interpretations of the rule, including a troll who believed in the “Rockin’ Rule” (a much heavier version of the Golden Rule), and a sentient cabbage who proposed the “Green Rule” (which mostly involved composting and sustainable farming). Like Clodsley, though, they struggled to apply the rule to beings utterly unlike themselves.

Clodsley’s adventures led him to the esteemed philosopher, Bertrand de Whimsley, who was known for his ability to weave intricate webs of thought using only a piece of string, a teacup, and a small, rubbery octopus. (I advise you not to think too hard about the details here.) Intrigued by Clodsley’s quest, de Whimsley agreed to help him untangle the complex threads of the Golden Rule.

Together, they delved into the depths of moral philosophy, debating questions such as: Should we always treat others as we wish to be treated, or are there times when it is morally justified to deviate from the rule? How can we account for the huge differences in the preferences of individuals when applying the Golden Rule? And, most importantly, can one truly be good in a world where evil is often just a poorly-worded wish away?

Armed with this knowledge, Clodsley continued his journey, applying the (now carefully modified and caveated) Golden Rule with a newfound sense of wisdom and empathy. But it wasn’t long before he encountered more situations where the rule didn’t quite work as intended.

One day, Clodsley stumbled upon a group of adventurers who were preparing to enter a mysterious dungeon. Feeling obligated to assist them, he offered to carry their heavy equipment. However, the adventurers, fearing that Clodsley’s lumbering form would give away their position to lurking monsters, politely declined and, in fact, told him they would much rather he stay outside. Confused, Clodsley realized that, as a golem, he had no need for stealth or concern about danger, and thus the Golden Rule didn’t perfectly apply in this situation.

In another instance, Clodsley came across a masochistic hedgehog who enjoyed being stepped on. The creature begged Clodsley to stomp on him, claiming it would bring him great pleasure. Clodsley hesitated, for while he would certainly not enjoy being stepped on by a being that exceeded his size in the way he exceeded the hedgeho’s, he knew that the hedgehog’s preferences were different from his own. He eventually decided to comply, albeit with extreme caution, to respect the hedgehog’s wishes.

As Clodsley continued to observe the world around him, he noticed that humans, too, were not always adept at following the Golden Rule. He saw people who took advantage of others, politicians who prioritized their own interests over those of their constituents, and even seemingly ordinary folk who would cut in line or steal a parking space without a second thought. It became clear to Clodsley that following the Golden Rule required not just understanding of the nuances of rule-following, but also commitment and willingness to investigate one’s own moral foible.

Clodsley Reads Kant

And so, Clodsley’s philosophical journey continued. Upon hearing of a renowned philosopher named Immanuel Kant, whose ideas were said to be as difficult to grasp as a greased-up eel wearing roller skates, Clodsley became intrigued. With a renewed sense of curiosity, he set out to learn more about Kant’s theories and how they might further refine his understanding of morality. After consulting with the wise and insufferably smug librarian at the local university, Clodsley found himself buried beneath a mountain of books written in an obscure language called “German” (he’d never heard of such a country), each one more impenetrable than the last. Despite the challenges, he persevered, determined to unravel the secrets of Kant’s moral philosophy.

Kant’s ethics centered around the concept of the “categorical imperative,” a set of moral principles that must be followed without exception. Clodsley learned that, according to Kant, an action is morally right if it can be universalized, meaning that everyone should be able to perform the same action without contradiction. This idea seemed quite appealing to Clodsley, as it appeared to offer a more structured approach to morality than the Golden Rule. With the categorical imperative in mind, Clodsley embarked on a new series of adventures, eager to put Kant’s theories to the test. He found that, in many situations, the categorical imperative gave good guidance on how to act. For example, when faced with a thief attempting to steal a valuable artifact, Clodsley reasoned that if everyone were to steal everything they wanted, the concept of property would no longer have any meaning. Thus, he intervened, returning the artifact to its rightful owner.

However, Clodsley soon discovered that Kant’s ideas were not without their own complications. He encountered a particularly tricky moral dilemma when a group of banshees captured a family and demanded that he help them with their project (of moving gravestones) e in exchange for the family’s freedom. Clodsley was torn. According to the categorical imperative, he should not aid the banshees, as doing so would condone their immoral actions of kidnapping and terrifying the family. However, refusing to help them would put the innocent family in danger. As he pondered this dilemma, Clodsley began to see the limitations of Kant’s philosophy. While the categorical imperative provided a valuable framework for understanding morality, it sometimes led to morally counterintuitive outcomes. With a heavy clay heart, Clodsley decided to help the banshees and save the family, deciding that we would try to bring the criminals to justice at a later time.

About a week later, on a sunny afternoon, Clodsley found himself wandering through the bustling market square of Granite City, where the air was thick with the tantalizing scents of fried rat-on-a-stick and the cacophony of haggling merchants. Amidst the chaos, Clodsley spotted a man with a stall full of enchanting trinkets and (purportedly) magical devices. The man was all too eager to sell his wares, promising they could make golems such as himself appear more “humanlike” and talk more “normally.”

As Clodsley observed the scene, he recalled the humanity formula, another aspect of Kant’s categorical imperative that he had recently learned. (He guessed that golems would count as humans on Kant’s definition.) The humanity formula held that one should always treat people as ends in themselves, and never merely as a means to an end. In simpler terms, it meant that using others solely for personal gain was ethically wrong. Clodsley decided that this was the perfect opportunity to put the humanity formula into practice. He noticed that the trinket-seller seemed to care little about the well-being of his customers, viewing them solely as a means to make a quick profit. A little research revealed that many of the devices were either faulty or dangerous, and the merchant’s nervous smile and shifty eyes did little to assuage his concerns.

Determined to ensure that the people of Granite City were treated with the respect and dignity they deserved, Clodsley approached the merchant and struck up a conversation with him. He began by asking about the items on display, feigning interest in purchasing several of them. As the merchant gleefully extolled the virtues of his wares, Clodsley subtly steered the conversation towards the importance of honesty and ethical business practices. He regaled the merchant with stories of his own moral journey, peppering the tales with amusing anecdotes and clever wordplay that would have made even the Patrician of Granite City chuckle.

Gradually, the merchant’s enthusiasm waned, and he began to reflect on his own actions. He realized that he had been treating his customers as mere stepping stones on his path to wealth, rather than as fellow human beings with their own needs and desires. Moved by Clodsley’s words and the humanity formula, the merchant vowed to change his ways. He promised to treat his customers with kindness and respect, ensuring that the devices he sold were safe and genuinely useful. In doing so, he transformed his little stall into a haven of fair trade and ethical commerce, all thanks to the gentle guidance of a clay-hearted golem. (It should be noted, though, that this moral resolution only lasted until the next Monday, as such resolutions are wont to do).

Through his encounter with the trinket-seller, Clodsley discovered that the humanity formula, like the other ethical theories he had explored, offered valuable insights into the nature of goodness. While it did not provide a universal solution to every moral dilemma, it reminded him of the importance of treating others with the respect and dignity they deserved.

A Friendly Debate

One rainy afternoon, as Clodsley ambled through the cobblestone streets of Granite City, he encountered another golem by the name of Pebblo. Upon learning of Clodsley’s philosophical adventures and fascination with Kantian “Deontology”, Pebblo was challenged him to a philosophical debate. As it turned out, Pebblo was a firm believer in utilitarianism, a moral theory that focused on maximizing overall happiness and well-being.

The two golems, surrounded by a curious crowd of onlookers, began to debate each other. Clodsley, drawing upon his recent experiences with Kantian ethics, defended deontology, while Pebblo took the side of utilitarianism.

Pebblo began: “Deontological theories like Kant’s can lead to morally counterintuitive outcomes. Imagine a situation all the inhabitants of a village have been cursed to uncontrollable flatulence. The only way to break the curse is to take a potion from a witch’s cottage nearby. The witch happens to be gone on vacation, though, so it would require breaking into her cottage. Deontology might prevent you from stealing, even though doing so would save the village from further embarrassment and discomfort, while utilitarianism would say it’s better to alleviate the suffering of many at the expense of breaking a rule.”

Clodsley countered, “Utilitarianism has its own problems. It can easily lead to the tyranny of the majority, where the happiness of the many is used to justify the suffering of the few. For example, imagine a village where a group of trolls is being oppressed for the amusement of the human population. A utilitarian might argue that it’s morally acceptable (as long as the numbers of humans were sufficiently large, and the numbers of trolls sufficiently small), while a deontologist would say it’s inherently wrong to treat others unjustly.”

Pebblo nodded, acknowledging the point, and replied, “You’re right, utilitarianism can struggle with issues of justice. But deontology also has difficulties handling conflicting duties. Suppose you yesterday promised to help a friend move a large, magical wardrobe, but when you wake up you discover that a different friend’s house has been attacked by possessed garden gnomes. Kantian ethics doesn’t provide a clear solution on which duty to prioritize.”

Clodsley considered this carefully, nodding his stone head. He responded, “You are correct—deontology can be rigid. However, utilitarianism can be too demanding. It requires that we always act to maximize happiness, but this could lead to an endless cycle of self-sacrifice. Imagine a wizard who spends every moment of his life casting happiness spells for others, never allowing himself a moment’s respite or joy. It seems wrong to think he is morally obligated in this way.

The Golems Discover Pluralism

As the debate continued, Clodsley and Pebblo realized that both deontology and utilitarianism had their strengths and weaknesses, and that neither provided a complete answer to the complexities of morality. That’s when they heard a voice from the crowd say “You should adopt Rossian pluralism!”. The voice belonged to a young witch named Elspeth. Shea explained that Rossian pluralism posited that there were several prima facie duties, or duties that should be followed in the absence of competing moral concerns. Some of these duties included fidelity, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. According to Elspeth, when one was faced with a moral dilemma, one should carefully weigh these competing duties and determine which duty took precedence over the others.

Clodsley found this idea fascinating and, in his usual clay-hearted enthusiasm, was eager to put it into practice. He soon discovered that Rossian pluralism offered a more flexible approach to morality, allowing him to navigate complex ethical situations with greater ease than before. For instance, when he came across a group of bickering dwarfs arguing over who should have the last slice of an incredibly stinky cheese, Clodsley was able to help the group prioritize their competing desires based on the duties of beneficence and justice. The golem suggested they share the cheese and savor the unparalleled aroma together. The dwarfs, after a moment of contemplation and several stifled gags, agreed.

In a somewhat odder encounter, Clodsley came across an animated scarecrow named Strawman who was suffering from an existential crisis. Strawman’s duties were to keep the crows away from the crops, but he had become friends with the very same crows and was now torn between his loyalties. Clodsley, applying Rossian pluralism, helped Strawman weigh the competing duties of fidelity to his farmer and the duty of beneficence towards his crow companions. Together, they devised a plan where Strawman would gently persuade the crows to find sustenance elsewhere (perhaps on the farm an especially annoying neighbor?), thus fulfilling both duties without resorting to conflict.

However, Clodsley soon realized that Rossian pluralism had its own weaknesses. For one, it lacked clear guidelines for determining which duty he should follow when several duties seemed equally important. For example, Clodsley found himself in the middle of a heated dispute between two wizards, who were arguing over the possession of their last remaining pointy wizard hat. One wizard cited appealed to beneficence, stating that he “needed” the hat more since his bald head sunburned more easily. The other appealed to justice, noting that she (unlike her companion) had helped craft the last batch of wizard hats. Clodsley felt duty-bound to resolve the matter, but without a clear-cut solution, he was at a loss.

In this case, Clodsley was lucky enough to discover that the missing hats were stolen by a mischievous imp with a penchant for pointy headwear. The golem managed to apprehend the imp and return the hats, but he realized that Rossian pluralism did not always provide a straightforward answer to moral dilemmas.

As he continued his journey through the Discworld, Clodsley embraced the insights from many ethical theories, from the Golden Rule to Kant’s categorical imperative and Rossian pluralism. He now well understoodthat the path to goodness was not a well-traveled and well-light highway, but rather a twisting, turning trail full of unexpected detours. With a heart of clay and a mind full of wisdom, Clodsley the golem became a beacon of hope and humor in a world that so desperately needed both. And as he navigated the tangled webs of morality, Clodsley reminded everyone he met that, in the pursuit of goodness, it was not the destination that mattered, but the journey itself.

Clodsley went on to author a number of books that explored various ideas related to deontological ethics and the work of more recent philosophers who worked in this area:

• A Clay of Justice: In this revisioning of John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice,” Clodsley proposed principles that would govern a just society of golems. By employing a thought experiment called “the original mud pit,” Clodsley argues for the “Golem-Difference Principle,” which ensures that inequalities among golems are arranged to benefit the least advantaged, and the “Clay Veil of Ignorance,” which requires golems to choose principles of justice without knowing their own position in society (as if they had clay veils across their eyes).
• The Golem’s View from Nowhere: Inspired by Thomas Nagel’s “The View from Nowhere,” this books take up the challenge of reconciling a golem’s subjective experiences with an objective, external world. The book delves into questions about the nature of golem consciousness, arguing that, like humans, golems possess subjective experiences that are both unique to the individual and limited in their ability to access an objective reality. Clodsley also addresses the limits of empathy and the possibility of a unified golem perspective, suggesting that understanding other golems’ experiences requires a combination of empathy and objective analysis.
• Constructing Golem Ethics: Drawing on Onora O’Neill’s work in ethical constructivism, Clodsley explores how golems can develop moral principles through a process of reflective equilibrium. Clodsley proposes a “golem categorical imperative,” suggesting that golems ought to act according to maxims that could be universally applied to all golems without contradiction. Furthermore, he offers insights on the importance of trust and communication in golem communities, arguing that ethical relationships between golems depend on open dialogue and mutual understanding.
• Golems, Animals, and the Morality of Clay: Using Christine Korsgaard’s exploration of animal ethics as a jumping off point, Clodsley examines the moral status of golems in relation to other living beings. He argues that golems, as sentient and animated beings, deserve moral consideration like animals and humans. Clodsley addresses questions of moral considerability, the nature of suffering, and the ethical implications of a golem’s existence as sentient, animated hunks of clay. He contends that golems, like both animals and humans, possess interests and the capacity for suffering, and as such, have moral claims that must be respected by humans and other golems alike.

These books, though lighthearted and filled with witty examples, marked Clodsley as the first golem philosopher, paving the way for a new generation of golems to explore and engage with the rich world of philosophical thought.

Discussion Questions: The Golem’s Code

• How does Clodsley’s understanding of the Golden Rule evolve throughout the story? What does this suggest about the simplicity or complexity of ethical theories?
• How does Clodsley apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative to different situations? Discuss its effectiveness and shortcomings.
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of deontology and utilitarianism as presented in the debates between Clodsley and Pebblo. How does each theory handle the moral dilemmas presented?
• Elspeth introduces Rossian pluralism as a potential solution to the limitations of both deontology and utilitarianism. How does Clodsley put this into practice, and does it seem effective in the situations he encounters?
• How does Clodsley’s application of Rossian pluralism help him resolve the moral dilemmas he encounters, such as the bickering dwarfs and Strawman’s existential crisis? In what situations does Rossian pluralism seem less effective, and why?
• In his books, Clodsley explores concepts from contemporary philosophers like John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, Onora O’Neill, and Christine Korsgaard. Based on the brief summaries provided, how does Clodsley adapt these concepts to the context of golem society? What unique perspectives does his status as a golem bring to these philosophical discussions?

Big Ideas: The Golden Rule

Clodsley’s first plodding steps toward a moral life start with the Golden Rule, a moral principle that is found in many different cultures and religions. It is often expressed in the phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Golden Rule is based on the idea that we should treat others with the same respect and consideration that we would want to be treated with. The Golden Rule is found in the teachings of many different religions:

• Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12)
• Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” (Hillel)
• Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” (Bukhari)
• Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata)
• Buddhism: “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others.” (Dhammapada)
• Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” (Analects)

The Golden Rule is a simple principle, but it is also a very powerful one that is sufficient for many moral problems of everyday life. When we follow the Golden Rule, we are treating others with the same respect and consideration that we would want to be treated with. This can lead to a more peaceful and harmonious world.

Paradoxes of the Golden Rule. As Clodsley discovers, however, the Golden Rule isn’t sufficient to solve all the ethical dilemmas he confronts. This is due to a number of well-known paradoxes regarding the Golden Rule:

• The Subjectivity Paradox: The Golden Rule, often expressed as “treat others as you would like to be treated,” assumes that people share the same preferences and desires. However, this assumption leads to a paradox since individual preferences can vary widely. Treating others according to one’s own preferences might inadvertently result in actions that are undesirable or harmful to others. For example, if Clodsley the golem prefers to be left alone when feeling upset, he might choose to leave a grieving friend alone, even though that friend might need companionship and support.
• The Altruism Paradox: The Golden Rule implies that one should act altruistically, treating others’ interests as equal or superior to one’s own. However, this can lead to a paradox where excessive altruism might result in neglecting one’s own well-being. If Clodsley the golem continually prioritizes others’ needs over his own, he could become exhausted and unable to help anyone effectively, ultimately diminishing the overall good that he could achieve.
• The Reciprocity Paradox: The Golden Rule can be interpreted as promoting reciprocity, expecting others to treat us as we treat them. However, this can lead to a paradox in situations where reciprocity is not guaranteed or where one party refuses to cooperate. For instance, if Clodsley the golem encounters an individual who refuses to treat others fairly, should Clodsley continue to treat that person according to the Golden Rule, or should he adjust his behavior to protect himself and others from potential harm?
• The Specificity Paradox: The Golden Rule is often praised for its simplicity and universal applicability. However, its generality can lead to a paradox when it comes to specific moral dilemmas. The rule provides no guidance on how to prioritize competing interests or resolve conflicts between multiple parties. For example, if Clodsley the golem is faced with a decision where helping one person harms another, the Golden Rule offers no clear guidance on how to proceed.

These paradoxes, among other things, lead Clodlsey to the ideas of Immanuel Kant.

Big Ideas: Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant (whose ideas Clodsley learns about) was born in Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia) on April 22, 1724. He was the fourth of nine children born to Johann Georg Kant, a harness maker, and Anna Regina Reuter Kant. Kant’s father died when he was 9 years old, and his mother raised him and his siblings. Kant attended the local Pietist school, where he studied Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and mathematics. He then went on to study at the University of Königsberg, where he earned a degree in philosophy in 1749. After graduating, Kant worked as a private tutor for several years. In 1755, he was appointed to a professor ship of mathematics at the University of Königsberg. He held this position until his death in 1804.

Kant was a prolific writer, and he published over 100 books and articles during his lifetime. His most famous work is the Critique of Pure Reason, which was published in 1781. In this work, Kant argued that our knowledge of the world is limited to our own experience. He also argued that there are certain things that we can know a priori, or without experience.

Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral principle that tells us to act only on those maxims that we can will to be universal laws. In other words, we should only do things that we would be willing for everyone to do, regardless of their personal circumstances orequence (Kant was NOT a utilitarian—in fact!). Kant’s three versions of the categorical imperative are:

• The first version of the categorical imperative is the formula of universal law. It states that we should only act on those maxims that we can will to be universal laws.
• The second version of the categorical imperative is the formula of humanity. It states that we should treat humanity, both in ourselves and others, as an end in itself, and never as a means to an end. We must respect the autonomy of others (the fact that they can set their own goals in life).
• The third version of the categorical imperative is the formula of the kingdom of ends. It states that we should act as if we were a member of a kingdom of ends, where everyone is treated with respect and dignity.

For Kant, the consequences of actions (for yourself or others) are technically speaking, irrelevant. Instead, what matters is that you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do (Kant calls acting in this way the good will, and holds it is the most valuable thing for humans).

Kant’s moral philosophy has had a profound impact on Western thought. His ideas have been debated and discussed by philosophers for centuries. Today, Kant’s work is still relevant and influential, and it continues to be studied and taught in universities around the world.

Applying the Categorical Imperative: Universal Law. The Universal Law formulation of the Categorical Imperative, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, dictates that one should act only according to maxims that can be consistently and universally applied. In other words, one should only do what they think everyone else should do in similar circumstances.

In the context of Clodsley the deontological golem, consider the following example: Clodsley encounters a situation where he can steal a loaf of bread to feed a hungry friend. Applying the Universal Law, Clodsley must consider whether he would want the principle “It is permissible to steal bread to feed a hungry friend” to be universally applied. If everyone were to act on this principle, it would lead to a society where property rights and trust are undermined, making it inconsistent and unsustainable. As a result, Clodsley should refrain from stealing the bread.

Strengths:

• The Universal Law provides a clear and objective method for moral decision-making.
• It emphasizes consistency and rationality in moral actions.

Weaknesses:

• It can be inflexible, as it does not account for the complexities of real-world situations and the moral nuances they may entail.
• It might result in morally counterintuitive conclusions, as it disregards the consequences of actions.

Applying the Categorical Imperative: Humanity Formula. The Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative posits that one should treat humanity, both in oneself and others, as an end in itself and never merely as a means. This principle requires respecting the autonomy and dignity of individuals.

In Clodsley’s world, imagine he is tasked with constructing a bridge. To complete the task quickly, he considers exploiting other golems by forcing them to work against their will. Applying the Humanity Formula, Clodsley recognizes that using other golems as mere means to achieve his goal would violate their dignity and autonomy. Instead, he should respect their intrinsic worth and seek their voluntary cooperation.

Strengths:

• The Humanity Formula promotes respect for the intrinsic worth and dignity of individuals, emphasizing the importance of treating others with fairness and compassion.
• It encourages moral agents to consider the effects of their actions on others.

Weaknesses:

• It can be overly demanding, as it requires individuals to always prioritize the dignity and autonomy of others, even in situations where doing so might lead to negative consequences.
• Its abstract nature can make it challenging to apply in specific situations.

Applying the Categorical Imperative: Kingdom of Ends. The Kingdom of Ends formulation of the Categorical Imperative envisions a hypothetical community where all individuals act as if they were both legislators and subjects in a realm of ends. In this ideal kingdom, everyone respects each other’s autonomy and dignity, and moral actions are guided by principles that would be acceptable to all rational beings.

Clodsley, as a deontological golem, could strive to create a just society among golems by promoting a social order based on mutual respect and cooperation. In this Kingdom of Ends, Clodsley and his fellow golems would only endorse laws and principles that honor the intrinsic worth of each golem and ensure fair treatment for all.

Strengths:

• The Kingdom of Ends concept emphasizes the importance of creating a just and harmonious society that respects the autonomy and dignity of all individuals.
• It encourages moral agents to consider the broader implications of their actions on the community.

Weaknesses:

• The concept relies on an idealized vision of society that may not be achievable in practice.
• It may not provide clear guidance for individuals facing moral dilemmas with conflicting duties or obligations.

The “Murder at the Door” Problem

The “Murderer at the Door” problem is a thought experiment that challenges Kantian ethics, specifically the principle of the Categorical Imperative and its insistence on telling the truth as a moral duty. The problem was first introduced by German philosopher Immanuel Kant himself in his book “Critique of Practical Reason.”

In this scenario, imagine a villainous character comes knocking at Clodsley’s door, seeking the whereabouts of a fellow golem who is hiding inside Clodsley’s house. If Clodsley tells the truth, he would reveal the hiding golem’s location, and the villain would likely harm or destroy them. If Clodsley lies, he would protect his fellow golem but violate the moral duty to tell the truth, as prescribed by Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

The dilemma highlights a potential conflict between two moral duties for Clodsley: the duty to tell the truth and the duty to protect an innocent golem’s life. According to Kantian ethics, lying is always morally wrong, as it violates the Categorical Imperative’s principle of universalizability – one should not act on maxims that cannot be universally applied without contradiction. If all golems were to lie, trust and communication would break down, leading to an inconsistent and unsustainable golem society.

However, many inhabitants of Clodsley’s world would argue that lying to the villain would be the morally right thing to do in this situation, as it protects an innocent golem’s life. This counterargument suggests that Kant’s moral framework may be too rigid and dogmatic, even for golems, as it does not account for the nuances and complexities of real-world situations where consequences matter.

The “Murderer at the Door” problem, as applied to Clodsley, raises questions about the limits of Kantian ethics and whether a strict adherence to the Categorical Imperative is always the best approach to moral decision-making for golems (or for the rest of us!). It invites further discussion about the role of consequences in determining the morality of actions and the need for more flexible ethical frameworks that can accommodate exceptional circumstances, even in a fantastical world.

Partially in response to problems such as this, some deontological thinkers argued that Kantian ideas needed to be “relaxed” to admit utilitarian considerations as well. This brings us to Rossian pluralism.

Big Ideas: Rossian Deontology

Rossian Deontology, often referred to as Rossian ethics, is a non-absolutist moral theory proposed by the British philosopher W. D. Ross in his book “The Right and the Good” (1930). This theory is a form of deontological ethics, meaning it focuses on the moral duties and rules we should follow, but it differs from other deontological theories such as those proposed by Immanuel Kant.

Ross’s theory is grounded in the concept of “prima facie duties,” a term which can be somewhat misleading as it translates to “on first appearance.” However, in this context, it doesn’t mean these duties are superficial or deceptive, but rather that they are self-evident moral obligations that should generally be followed, unless they come into conflict with another duty that is more pressing in a particular situation.

Ross identified several prima facie duties, including:

• Fidelity: This refers to the duty to keep promises and be honest. For example, if you promise to help a friend move, you have a prima facie duty to do so.
• Reparation: This involves the duty to correct any wrongs you have done. If you accidentally break a neighbor’s window while playing baseball, for example, you have a duty to repair it or pay for the damages.
• Gratitude: This is the duty to show thankfulness towards others who have helped us. If someone helps you study for a test, you have a duty to express your gratitude.
• Justice: This refers to the duty to ensure a fair distribution of pleasure and pain. If you’re in charge of dividing a cake at a party, you have a duty to divide it equally among the guests.
• Beneficence: This involves the duty to improve the conditions of others. For instance, if you see someone struggling to carry heavy boxes, you have a duty to offer your help if you’re able.
• Self-improvement: This is the duty to better oneself in areas like virtue and intelligence. For instance, you have a duty to educate yourself and strive to be a kind and considerate person.
• Non-maleficence: This refers to the duty not to harm others. If you’re driving, for instance, you have a duty to drive carefully to avoid causing harm to pedestrians or other drivers.

Ross’s theory is a type of ethical pluralistic because it holds that there are many intrinsic goods and many types of duties, and no single duty always takes precedence over the others. Instead, the right course of action depends on the specifics of the situation.

For example, imagine you have a job interview that could lead to a significant improvement in your life (self-improvement), but on the way, you witness a car accident where you could potentially help (beneficence and non-maleficence). Rossian ethics doesn’t provide a fixed rule to determine which duty takes precedence. Instead, it calls for you to consider all relevant duties and make a judgement based on the particulars of the situation, including the urgency, the number of people affected, the degree of potential harm or benefit, and other factors.

Rossian Deontology is therefore a more flexible form of deontology, one that acknowledges the complexities of real-life moral decisions. However, this flexibility can also make it more challenging to apply, as it often requires careful judgement and doesn’t provide clear-cut answers to every moral dilemma.

Discussion Questions

• In general, how do “deontological” theories of ethics differ from “consequentialist” theories (such as utilitarianism)?
• How do the Golden Rule, Kantian ethics, and Rossian ethics conceptualize duty and obligation? What are the key similarities and differences?
• In what ways does the Golden Rule fall short as a complete moral system? Can you think of any situations where applying the Golden Rule might lead to morally problematic outcomes?
• Kant’s categorical imperative requires that we act according to maxims that can be universally applied. Are there any circumstances where this approach could lead to impractical or unjust results?
• Rossian ethics proposes multiple prima facie duties that might sometimes conflict. How does this approach provide more flexibility than Kantian ethics? Can you think of any potential disadvantages to this flexibility?
• Imagine you’re a doctor with five patients who need organ transplants and one healthy patient who could provide the organs. How would the different forms of deontology guide your decision-making process in this difficult situation?
• How might Kantian ethics and Rossian ethics guide you in a situation where you have to decide between telling a painful truth to a friend and sparing their feelings with a white lie?
• If you were a leader deciding on policies to address social inequality, how might your approach differ based on the Golden Rule, Kantian ethics, and Rossian ethics?

Glossary