Editing Ethics (section)

=== Deontology ===
{{main|Deontology}}
Deontology assesses the moral rightness of actions based on a set of [[Norm (philosophy)|norms]] or principles. These norms describe the requirements that all actions need to follow.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} }}</ref> They may include principles like telling the truth, keeping [[promise]]s, and not intentionally harming others.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Simpson|loc=§ 6c. Deontological Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties}} | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} }}</ref> Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the validity of general moral principles does not directly depend on their consequences. They state that these principles should be followed in every case since they express how actions are inherently right or wrong. According to moral philosopher [[W. D. Ross|David Ross]], it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Simpson|loc=§ 6c. Deontological Pluralism and Prima Facie Duties}} }}</ref> Deontologists are interested in which actions are right and often allow that there is a gap between what is right and what is good.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism, § 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Murthy|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tzhEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74 74]}} }}</ref> Many focus on prohibitions and describe which acts are forbidden under any circumstances.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Crisp|2005|pp=200–201}} }}</ref>

==== Agent-centered and patient-centered ====
Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the [[moral agency|person who acts]] and the [[Duty|duties]] they have. Agent-centered theories often focus on the motives and intentions behind people's actions, highlighting the importance of acting for the right reasons. They tend to be agent-relative, meaning that the reasons for which people should act depend on personal circumstances. For example, a parent has a special obligation to their child, while a stranger does not have this kind of obligation toward a child they do not know. Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affected by actions and the rights they have. An example is the requirement to treat other people as ends and not merely as a means to an end.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Hale|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=CQNLDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA216 216]}} | {{harvnb|Kumm|Walen|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DXs9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 81]}} }}</ref> This requirement can be used to argue, for example, that it is wrong to kill a person against their will even if this act would save the lives of several others. Patient-centered deontological theories are usually agent-neutral, meaning that they apply equally to everyone in a situation, regardless of their specific role or position.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2. Deontological Theories}}</ref>

==== Kantianism ====
{{main|Kantian ethics}}
[[File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Oil painting of Immanuel Kant|[[Immanuel Kant]] formulated a deontological system based on universal laws that apply to all [[Rationality|rational]] creatures.]]

[[Immanuel Kant]] (1724–1804) is one of the most well-known deontologists.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.4 Deontological Theories and Kant}}</ref> He states that reaching outcomes that people desire, such as being happy, is not the main purpose of moral actions. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their desires. He uses the term ''[[categorical imperative]]'' for these principles, saying that they have their source in the structure of [[practical reason]] and are true for all [[Rationality|rational]] agents. According to Kant, to act morally is to act in agreement with reason as expressed by these principles<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|O'Neill|loc=§ 1. Kant's Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} | {{harvnb|Nadkarni|2011|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=aoM8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT20 20]}} }}</ref> while violating them is both immoral and irrational.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=Lead section}}</ref>

Kant provided several formulations of the categorical imperative. One formulation says that a person should only follow [[Maxim (philosophy)|maxims]]{{efn|A maxim is a rule that people can adopt to guide their action, like "If you want to make big money, you should go into sales" or "Thou shalt not commit murder".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kerstein|2009|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Bqemab0aXx8C&pg=PA128 128]}} | {{harvnb|Cardwell|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=iEbKBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA85 85]}} }}</ref>}} that can be [[Universalizability|universalized]]. This means that the person would want everyone to follow the same maxim as a universal law applicable to everyone. Another formulation states that one should treat other people always as ends in themselves and never as mere means to an end. This formulation focuses on respecting and valuing other people for their own sake rather than using them in the pursuit of personal goals.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|O'Neill|loc=§ 1. Kant's Ethics}} | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} }}</ref>

In either case, Kant says that what matters is to have a good will. A person has a good will if they respect the moral law and form their intentions and motives in agreement with it. Kant states that actions motivated in such a way are unconditionally good, meaning that they are good even in cases where they result in undesirable consequences.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Jankowiak|loc=§ 5. Moral Theory}} | {{harvnb|Johnson|Cureton|2022|loc=§ 2. Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty, § 3. Duty and Respect for Moral Law}} }}</ref>

==== Others ====
{{main|Divine command theory|Contractualism|Discourse ethics}}
Divine command theory says that God is the source of morality. It states that moral laws are divine commands and that to act morally is to obey and follow [[God's will]]. While all divine command theorists agree that morality depends on God, there are disagreements about the precise content of the divine commands, and theorists belonging to different religions tend to propose different moral laws.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Austin|loc=Lead section}} | {{harvnb|Murphy|2019|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref> For example, Christian and Jewish divine command theorists may argue that the [[Ten Commandments]] express God's will<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Miller|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=87hQ2AjcttEC&pg=PA13 13]}} | {{harvnb|Flynn|2012|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqdAIC&pg=PA167 167]}} }}</ref> while Muslims may reserve this role for the teachings of the [[Quran]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Flynn|2012|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=pl3bToUqdAIC&pg=PA167 167]}} | {{harvnb|Myers|Noebel|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=hzeACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA241 241]}} }}</ref> 

Contractualists reject the reference to God as the source of morality and argue instead that morality is based on an explicit or implicit [[social contract]] between humans. They state that actual or hypothetical [[consent]] to this contract is the source of moral norms and duties. To determine which duties people have, contractualists often rely on a [[thought experiment]] about what rational people under ideal circumstances would agree on. For example, if they would agree that people should not lie then there is a moral obligation to refrain from lying. Because it relies on consent, contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of deontology.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.3 Contractualist Deontological Theories}} | {{harvnb|Sullivan|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=1vkgWX7GRr0C&pg=PA118 118]}} | {{harvnb|Ashford|Mulgan|2018|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>{{efn|Some ethicists state that contractualism is not a normative ethical theory but a metaethical theory because of its emphasis on how moral norms are justified.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|Moore|2021|loc=§ 2.3 Contractualist Deontological Theories}}</ref>}} Famous social contract theorists include [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[John Locke]], [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], and [[John Rawls]].<ref>{{harvnb|Friend|loc=Lead section}}</ref>

[[File:JuergenHabermas.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of Jürgen Habermas|According to [[discourse ethics]], as formulated by [[Jürgen Habermas]], moral norms are justified by [[Communicative rationality|rational discourse]] within society. ]]

Discourse ethics also focuses on social agreement on moral norms but says that this agreement is based on [[communicative rationality]]. It aims to arrive at moral norms for pluralistic modern societies that encompass a diversity of viewpoints. A universal moral norm is seen as valid if all rational discourse participants do or would approve. This way, morality is not imposed by a single moral authority but arises from the moral discourse within society. This discourse should aim to establish an [[ideal speech situation]] to ensure fairness and inclusivity. In particular, this means that discourse participants are [[Freedom of speech|free to voice]] their different opinions without coercion but are at the same time required to justify them using rational argumentation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Chakraborti|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f5jXEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 39]}} | {{harvnb|Metselaar|Widdershoven|2016|pp=[https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_145 895–896]}} | {{harvnb|Finlayson|Rees|2023|loc=§ 3.3 The Principles of Discourse Ethics and Their Justification}} }}</ref>