2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 1/3

Summary of Kant's Deontology Overview of Kant's Approach A theme that runs through Kant's moral theory is that morality makes demands on us that are independent of our desires. For example, you should not steal, even if you really want that new laptop that you can't afford. You should not murder, even if you're really angry at that person you want to kill. When Kant speaks of moral law as categorical imperatives, what he means is that moral laws are not suggestions for what we should do if we have certain desires, but rather commands for what we should do regardless of our desires. Moral laws bind us to do what is right, setting parameters for what is or is not morally permissible, regardless of what culture says or how you feel about the matter.

Principle of Universalizability (or the Universal Law Formulation) If moral law is not dependent on desires, then how is moral law determined? According to Kant, moral law is determined by reason. Begin by considering what a law is: it is a command that applies to all capable of responding to that law. In other words, laws are by their nature universal. For example, a scientific law, say the Newtonian law that states that force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). Such a law is not a law only when objects feel like following the law or if objects are under some restricted set of circumstances. The law dictates how all objects with mass are to move in any circumstance. Similarly, moral laws are laws that dictate how rational beings should behave, independent of how those beings might feel at a given moment.

If moral laws are universal in this way, then they do not emit of exceptions, since laws apply to all in all circumstances. The principle of universalizability is a way for us to identify what the moral laws are by considering what we as rational beings would agree to if what we planned to do for the reason we have (i.e. a maxim: the intent and action plan that we set forth for ourselves in deciding what to do, for example, if I was planning on stealing to make money, then my maxim is "I will steal

to make money [intent]") is to be allowed for all other rational beings. For example, if I wanted to steal to make some money for myself, I need to ask the question: would I want everyone else to also be allowed to act on this intent. Clearly, I would not want others to also steal to make money because if they did, they would simply steal from me, in which case, my own goals of making money are frustrated by others stealing from me. It is, in other words, irrational for me to act on my maxim when I consider allowing others to do the same.

We can run through the same process with any maxim. Go ahead and try for the following maxims:

2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 2/3

1. I will lie and promise to pay back a loan though I plan not to so that I can buy all the things I want.

2. I will not help others who are in need so that I can get everything that I want. 3. I will kill someone I am angry with so that I feel better.

Which of these cases do you not want your maxim to be universalized (i.e. made into a law)?

Principle of Humanity (or the Humanity Formulation) For Kant, there were many ways to learn what the moral law demands. Principle of Universalizability is one method, but the Principle of Humanity is another. According to the Principle of Humanity, we must treat humanity always as a end and never as a mere means. To better understand this principle, we need to define a few key concepts:

1. Humanity, for Kant, refers to all rational beings, which includes humans, but may include other rational beings we may encounter (maybe aliens, or artificial intelligence, or superintelligent rhinos).

2. To treat someone as an end is to treat one as a rational being, as someone who has the ability to think rationally and make their own decisions. Taking away someone else's decision-making power, for instance by enslaving them or by not allowing them to voice their views, is to not treat one as a rational being.

3. To treat someone as a mere means is to treat someone as a means to an end, or as an instrument for attaining something else. For example, if I use your head like a hammer for nailing, then I am using you (a rational being) as a tool to get what I want (hang pictures on the wall using nails).

Now to be clear, we can use one another to attain our own goals, and in fact, we do so all the time. For instance, I use my plumber to get leaks in my home fixed and the plumber is using me to make a living. However, what Kant is essentially saying is that we cannot treat one another as nothing more than an instrument for getting what we want; we need to also always treat one another as a fellow rational being. If I took away my plumber's rational capacity, either by lying to him or enslaving him, then I am treating the plumber nothing more than a means to an end. However, if the plumber and I mutually agree to a contract without any deception, then we are treating each other as rational beings who can make informed decisions for themselves, and so even if we are using each other, we are still treating each other as rational beings, and so following the moral law.

To practice, consider the maxims mentioned earlier and see if you can decide what the Principle of Humanity would say about the matter. (According to Kant, you should come to the same conclusions, but is that correct?)

1. I will lie and promise to pay back a loan though I plan not to so that I can buy all the things I want.

2. I will not help others who are in need so that I can get everything that I want.

2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 3/3

3. I will kill someone I am angry with so that I feel better.

REGIONAL

ETHICS BOWL

CASES

FALL 2022

Written and edited by:

Michael Funke

Rhiannon Dodds Funke

Alexa Bishopric

Contributing Authors:

Matthew Mangum

Juliana Hemela (NHSEB)

Meredith Sheeks (NHSEB)

© Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2 022

Editor’s Note: Please note that source materials cited may be used multiple times, but only

identified once per case.

2 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

1. Abandoned? Well, that’s too bad

The Rowe family is suing Blue Energy LLC for compensation regarding an incident that

occurred in May 2012, although they say not even a million dollars would be sufficient for the

horrors they endured. Reuters reported that “Hanson and Michael Rowe noticed an overpowering

smell, like rotten eggs, seeping from an abandoned gas well on their land in Kentucky. The

fumes made the retired couple feel nauseous, dizzy, and short of breath.”1 Unfortunately, the

Rowes faced significant difficulty in holding the well's owner accountable. While the well was

on their land, the well itself was owned and drilled by J.D. Carty Resources LLC in 2006. Carty

dissolved in 2008 and sold the well to a company that was then acquired by Blue Energy, LLC,

which denied any ownership or obligation for the well.

The state of Kentucky declared the well an environmental emergency and ran a 40-day operation

to plug it, while the Rowes moved to a trailer on their property with no running water.

Regulators determined the leak was a toxic blend of hydrogen sulfide, a common drilling

byproduct, and the potent greenhouse gas, methane.

In last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law, 4.7 billion dollars were provided to plug and

remediate abandoned oil and gas wells.2 There are anywhere from 750,000 to over 3 million

abandoned oil and gas wells in the U.S. and they emit millions of metric tons of methane per

year. In addition to climate impacts, they also can contaminate ground water and even pose

safety hazards. And these wells are labor intensive and expensive to plug, costing anywhere

between $76,000 to $1 million for each well3. If you do the math, the funds set aside for fixing

the issue are a good start but nowhere near sufficient to fully address the problem.

While the issue of abandoned wells has been pervasive for decades, our lawmakers have only

begun to focus on remediation in the last few years. Many saw remediation of abandoned wells

as politically popular because it could become a source of jobs in so called “energy transition

communities” or areas where fossil fuel industry jobs dwindle as we transition to cleaner energy.

And although the money will be put towards reducing emissions, something which we must do

in order to reduce the most dire effects of climate change, some lawmakers have stated that the

private companies who caused this problem should be footing the bill, not the federal

government. Increasing bonding requirements for future well drilling could ensure that private

companies put aside money in advance to deal with abandoned wells, but this would not address

wells that have already been abandoned. Additionally, the money allocated in the bipartisan

infrastructure law for remediation of abandoned wells will not solve the systemic problems that

resulted in the abandonment of wells that emit methane, which would only accelerate with a

transition away from fossil fuels.

1 Nichola Groom, “Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace” June 16,

2020, Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport/special-report-millions-of-

abandoned-oil-wells-are-leaking-methane-a-climate-menace-idUSKBN23N1NL 2 H.R.3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-

bill/3684/text 3 Daniel Raimi, Alan J. Krupnick, Jhih-Shyang Shah, and Alexandra Thompson, “Decommissioning Orphaned and

Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells: New Estimates and Cost Drivers” Environmental Science & Technology 2021 55

(15), 10224-10230 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c02234

3 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

But, as made clear by the Rowe’s situation, these abandoned wells are causing harm in

communities, and the debate over who should pay would not have helped them live in a safe

home. If there is political capital so to speak, many argue that the opportunity should be grabbed

by the horns.

4 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

2. Happy to be alone?

On May 18, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals heard a case on whether Happy the elephant

has the right of Habeas Corpus, and therefore, whether she is considered a legal person. This was

the first case of its kind in an English-speaking high court and called into question what

constitutes a person in the United States.1

For the past 45 years, Happy the elephant has been kept at the Bronx Zoo in a one-acre

enclosure, with intermittent contact with other elephants.2 A petition led by the Nonhuman

Rights Project (NhRP) garnered almost 1.5 million signatures calling for Happy’s release to an

elephant sanctuary. The petition, titled “End Happy The Elephant's 10 Years of Solitary

Confinement”, states that Happy has been in isolation since her companions Grumpy and Sammy

died. Zoo defenders assert that Happy is not alone, and that she receives extensive care,

including efforts at interaction and enrichment, unlike prisoners in solitary confinement who

receive little if any human contact. For instance, Happy resides next to another female elephant,

Patty, who is separated by a fence and the two elephants can see and smell each other, and even

touch trunks.3

Proponents on both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Happy’s personhood would have massive

ramifications. The Nonhuman Rights Projects filing the case on behalf of Happy, argue that the

ruling could help animals achieve the bodily liberty that has been denied to them across human

history. Whereas in a brief, attorneys for the Bronx Zoo wrote “Expanding the notion of a

‘person’ to include animals … has implications not just for zoos, but for pet owners, farmers,

academic and hospital-based researchers and, most critically, every human who might seek or

need access to the judicial system.”

Happy was, in part, selected by the NhRP because in 2005 she was the first elephant to pass the

mirror test, previously only passed by great apes and dolphins. The mirror test determines

whether an animal possesses the ability of visual self-recognition and is often associated with

capacity for empathy. It is unclear whether opening the legal recognition of personhood to

Happy the elephant would set the stage for all animals to fall under this category. There have

been many theories on how to quantify the moral value of a being, whether that is self-

awareness, capacity for pain, or the capacity of rational thought. Some philosophers have even

addressed consideration for the moral weight of plants.

NhRP argues that those who have claims against their case do so for personal interest, such as

the National Association for Biomedical Research, which claimed that “extending habeas rights

to animals would … drive up the cost of conducting critical research using animals, threatening to

1 Michael Doyle, “Happy the elephant's case poses heavy philosophical” Politico, 05/12/2022

questionshttps://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/05/12/happy-the-elephants-case-poses-heavy-

philosophical-questions-00032060 2 Vicki Constantine Croke, “Happy the elephant had her day in court. We humans are better for it.” The Washington

Post, June 23, 2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/23/bronx-zoo-elephant-lawsuit-happy-

captivity/ 3 Jill Lepore, “The Elephant who could be a person” The Atlantic, 11, 2021

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/happy-elephant-bronx-zoo-nhrp-lawsuit/620672/

5 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

impede important medical breakthroughs and other major scientific advances that benefit

humans and animals alike.”4

Three Buddhist scholars countered in a brief that “this legal moment for Happy represents a great

opportunity to consider the treatment of sentient beings from a cross-cultural and more moral

perspective than we have done before, so as to avoid perpetuating a great moral wrong merely

because it has been a habit of the law.”

On June 16, 2022, the top New York Court ruled that Happy cannot claim habeas corpus rights,

and therefore, is not a legal person. While this may put to rest this challenge seeking animal

personhood in the United States, the law is not necessarily coextensive of morality.

4 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Amicus Curiae Brief, September 24, 2021

https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/Kathleen-Sullivan-brief-Happy-Court-of-Appeals.pdf

6 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

3. Knowledge for the sake of … lizard dewlaps?

An ecology lab at a renowned University focuses their research on animals largely found in the

Caribbean and the southeastern United States. One of the groups focuses on anoles, a type of

lizard of which there are more than 425 species, and focuses on one of these species. The Anolis

Distichus had been selected out of hundreds, due to the dearth of research on the particular

species, because it is smaller and quicker, and therefore harder to catch than others. The group

researches the lizard’s dewlap, a brightly colored extendible flap of skin, and seeks to determine

its true purpose as it has been hypothesized that male anoles use it to attract mates. In the course

of research, teams of students are sent to capture wild anoles for study, measurements are taken,

and then the lizards are released. But sometimes during this process, accidents happen, and the

lizards die due to sun exposure, dropping of containers, or other unforeseen circumstances.

It is unclear to some, what this research would do for either humanity, or for the lizards

themselves. This begs the question whether knowledge, for the sake of knowledge, is a goal

justified in it of itself, in exchange for the loss of animal lives. Others may argue that scientific

discoveries sometimes lead to unexpected advantages in other aspects of life. Like how scientists

discovered that sharks resist infection, and then transitioned this knowledge into studying the

sharks’ immune system with the hope that their immunity could unlock secrets to improve

human health1. Scientists may not always know the application of their study until after findings

are made. Thus, it’s possible the dewlap research could become relevant for conservation of

lizard habitats if, for instance, we learn that they need to use their dewlaps in a particular

location, climate, or time of day. And even if the research does not impart some immediate

further application, some could say the knowledge alone is powerful. But the anoles at the

moment do not get a say.

The above is an example where animals are accidentally killed in the field, but in many cases,

animals are killed at the end of experiments due to factors such as stress or illness, that would not

allow them to be returned to the wild. Many consider this a reasonable cost of better knowledge

and understanding of our world. In Germany, there are investigations into whether the routine

culling of unused research animals should be allowed, as they were not even used “for the

greater good”. For example, the European Union estimated that in 2017, EU labs culled 83% of

mice in labs without any studies, due to space or time constraints.2 Animal rights activists in

many countries have tried and failed for decades to get stricter animal testing laws on the books.

The Animal Welfare Act is the only federal legislation that regulates researching animals in the

U.S, but it does not cover 95% of the animals used in laboratories such as mice, rats, birds, and

fish.3

1 Melinda Ratini, “Understanding Cancer — the Basics” WebMD, January 20, 2022

https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20170721/what-sharks-can-teach-us-about-our-health 2 Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup “Germany weighs whether culling excess lab animals is a crime” Science, May 5,

2022, https://www.science.org/content/article/germany-weighs-whether-culling-excess-lab-animals-crime 3 Susan Gilbert, Gregory E. Kaebnick, and Thomas H. Murray, “Animal Research Ethics: Evolving Views and

Practices,” Special Report, Hastings Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012) http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/u-s-

law-and-animal-research/

7 © Association for Practical and Professional Ethics 2022

4. Do no harm

On December 24, 2017, 75-year-old Charlene Murphey was admitted to Vanderbilt University

Medical Center with a subdural hematoma.1 Two days later, Murphey’s condition had improved,

and she was prescribed a sedating drug, Versed, to allow her to be still during a final MRI before

release. RaDonda Vaught, a registered nurse with seven years of experience at the hospital, was

ordered to administer the sedative. Vaught attempted to withdraw the sedative from an

automated dispensing cabinet by keying “VE” into the search function. When this failed Vaught

used an override code to manually withdraw the medication. Unfortunately, Vaught mistakenly

withdrew vecuronium, a paralyzing drug, the administration of which led to the death of

Charlene Murphy.

Vaught admitted her error to Vanderbilt administrators, explaining that she was distracted by a

trainee and had been complacent. That information was not passed on to medical examiners, as

required by law, and Murphy’s death was attributed to natural causes. In the following month

Vaught was fired but retained her nursing license as Vanderbilt continued to suppress public

knowledge of the incident. In October 2018, the incident became public due to an anonymous tip

and Vaught faced a hearing with the Tennessee Department of Health’s Board of Nursing.

Vaught explained the incident and that overriding the automated dispensing system was daily

practice, that “You couldn’t get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function.”

The board allowed her to retain her license.

Vaught was arrested on February 4, 2019 and charged with reckless homicide and impaired adult

abuse. To fund her legal defense, Vaught started a GoFundMe campaign writing, “Many feel

very strongly that setting the precedent that nurses should be indicted and incarcerated for

inadvertent medical errors is dangerous.” Nurses rallied to Vaught’s defense raising over

$100,000, appearing at her trial, and writing letters of support. Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis

registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope, a nurse’s group with more than

600,000 members said, “In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses,”

Garner said. “You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and

usually it’s because they don't realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know