Deontology and Respect for Persons

In contrast to utilitarianism’s focus on consequences, Deontology (from the Greek deon, meaning duty) focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions. The most influential deontologist was Immanuel Kant.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant argued that morality is grounded in reason and that certain duties are absolute (categorical). He proposed the Categorical Imperative as a test for moral duty. One famous formulation is:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

In other words, would it be okay if everyone did what you are about to do? If the result would be a logical contradiction or a world that no one would want to live in (e.g., a world where everyone breaks promises), the action is immoral.

The Respect for Persons Principle

A second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is critical for engineering and research ethics:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

This is known as the Respect for Persons principle. It dictates that individuals possess inherent dignity and must be treated as free and equal moral agents. They should never be used as mere “tools” for the benefit of others, even if that benefit is large.

Rights: Negative and Positive

Kantian ethics supports the establishment of human rights:

1. Negative Rights: Freedom from interference (e.g., the right not to be deceived, the right not to have one’s privacy invaded by a tracking algorithm).
2. Positive Rights: Entitlements to certain provisions (e.g., the right to be informed about the risks of a technology so that one can give “informed consent”).

Application in Technology

Under a deontological framework, certain actions are forbidden regardless of their utility.

• Case: A company discovers a minor security flaw that would cost millions to fix but only has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of harming a user.
• Utilitarian: Might justify ignoring it if the cost of the fix exceeds the statistical “value” of the harm.
• Deontologist: Would argue that ignoring the flaw is a violation of the duty to protect the user’s safety and relies on deceiving them about the product’s integrity. It treats the user as a mere means to corporate profit.