# Gemini This document provides an exhaustive, self-contained explanation of the lecture transcript. It is designed to build a complete mental model of the concepts discussed, assuming no prior knowledge and leaving no conceptual gaps. The explanation follows a coherent narrative, expanding upon the lecture's content to ensure a deep and thorough understanding. ## Introduction and Administrative Preliminaries The session begins with the lecturer, Simon, acknowledging the class representative, Stephen, for organizing a student feedback mechanism. This serves as an entry point into a discussion about the importance of structured communication within an academic course. ### The Student-Staff Liaison Committee and Mid-Semester Feedback A student representative, Stephen, addresses the class to announce an upcoming Student-Staff Liaison Committee meeting. This committee is a formal body designed to facilitate communication between the students enrolled in a course and the staff who teach and administer it (lecturers, tutors, etc.). Its purpose is to provide a structured channel for feedback. Stephen explains that the committee's primary function at this point in the semester is to collect feedback on the subject. This is a proactive measure, distinct from the standard end-of-semester surveys. End-of-semester surveys are retrospective; they gather student opinions after the course is complete, meaning any resulting improvements will only benefit future cohorts of students. The mid-semester feedback process, by contrast, is designed to be formative. It allows the teaching staff to identify any issues or areas for improvement while the course is still in progress, enabling them to make adjustments that can enhance the learning experience for the current students in the second half of the semester. To facilitate this, a survey has been created. Stephen emphasizes a crucial feature of this survey: its complete anonymity. He explicitly states that not even the students' IP addresses will be recorded. An IP (Internet Protocol) address is a unique numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network, which can potentially be used to identify the user's location or even the specific device they used. By assuring students that this data will not be collected, the organizers aim to encourage candid and honest feedback, removing any fear of potential negative repercussions for criticism. The survey itself is structured with a mix of question types. It includes multiple-choice questions designed to gauge student satisfaction with specific components of the course, such as the lectures, the tutorials (smaller, interactive group sessions), and any other elements. In addition to these quantitative measures, the survey includes optional short-answer questions. These provide a space for students to offer more detailed, qualitative feedback, comments, or specific suggestions for improvement. To illustrate the practical impact of such feedback, Stephen provides examples from previous years. Students have used this channel to raise concerns about lecture quality, such as issues with the audibility of lecture recordings. A common problem in large lecture halls is that questions asked by students in the audience are not picked up by the lecturer's microphone, making the recordings confusing for those who watch them later. By raising this issue, students prompted the teaching staff to find solutions, such as repeating student questions into the microphone before answering them. This demonstrates how the feedback loop is intended to work in practice. The announcement concludes with logistical details. Stephen introduces himself and mentions that there are four student representatives in total for this large subject, providing multiple points of contact for students. He also imparts a sense of urgency: the survey will close just one hour after the lecture concludes. This short timeframe is unusual, as these feedback initiatives typically occur later in the semester (around week 6), but has been implemented differently this year. The lecturer adds that an official announcement about the survey was also posted on the university's online learning platform, Canvas, the previous day. Following the student announcement, the lecturer, Simon, makes a lighthearted comment, humorously suggesting that any "nasty" feedback should be directed at the tutor, Damien. This is immediately followed by a retraction and a positive affirmation of the tutor's character, serving as a brief moment of levity before transitioning to the academic content of the lecture. ## Recap of Utilitarianism Before introducing the main topic of the lecture, deontology, the lecturer offers a recap of the ethical theory covered in the previous week: utilitarianism. This recap is essential because deontology is often defined in direct opposition to utilitarianism. Understanding the core tenets of utilitarianism is therefore a prerequisite for grasping the fundamental principles and motivations of deontology. The lecturer confirms the class's interest in a recap before proceeding, ensuring the pedagogical approach is responsive to the students' needs. ### The Core Principle: Maximizing Utility Utilitarianism is a form of **consequentialism**, a class of ethical theories that judge the morality of an action based solely on its outcomes or consequences. The specific type of consequence that utilitarians are concerned with is **utility**. The foundational rule of utilitarianism is the **Principle of Utility**, which states that the morally right action is the one that maximizes the total amount of utility in the world. Utility is a measure of overall good or well-being. It can be conceptualized in several ways: 1. **Classical or Hedonistic Utilitarianism:** Championed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this view defines utility as happiness, which is further broken down into the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. For these thinkers, pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic evil. 2. **Preference Utilitarianism:** A more modern interpretation defines utility as the satisfaction of preferences or desires. This approach is seen by some as an improvement because people desire things other than simple pleasure, such as knowledge, friendship, or achieving a difficult goal, which may even involve some degree of suffering. The goal is not just to produce some utility, but to *maximize* it. This means choosing the action that produces the greatest possible sum total of utility, or the "greatest good for the greatest number." According to a strict utilitarian view, any action that fails to maximize utility is not just suboptimal; it is morally wrong. This creates a demanding moral standard where individuals are obligated to always choose the best possible course of action. ### The Utilitarian Calculus To apply the Principle of Utility, one must engage in a process often called the **utilitarian calculus**. This involves a systematic assessment of the potential consequences of an action. The key steps are: 1. **Identify all affected parties:** The calculation must be impartial, considering everyone whose interests or well-being might be affected by the action. One's own happiness or the happiness of one's friends and family carries no more weight than the happiness of a stranger. 2. **Quantify the utility for each party:** One must estimate the amount of pleasure, pain, or preference satisfaction/frustration that will result from the action for each individual. This involves considering factors like the intensity, duration, and certainty of these feelings. 3. **Sum the totals:** The individual amounts of utility (positive for pleasure/satisfaction, negative for pain/frustration) are summed up to find the net utility for each possible action. The action with the highest net utility is the morally right one. To make this abstract concept concrete, the lecturer presents an example: the justification of punishment. Consider the choice between sentencing a person to life imprisonment for a serious crime versus allowing them to go free, which would cause widespread public worry. * **The Harm of Imprisonment:** Sentencing the person causes immense suffering (negative utility) for that single individual over a prolonged period. * **The Harm of Public Worry:** Allowing the person to go free causes a lower level of suffering (worry, fear) but for a much larger number of people. * **The Calculation:** A utilitarian would weigh these outcomes. If the cumulative negative utility of widespread public worry is greater than the intense negative utility of one person's lifelong imprisonment, then sentencing the person is the morally correct action. This is because it produces the best overall state of affairs, or the least bad state of affairs, thereby maximizing net utility. Punishment is justified not because the criminal "deserves" it (a non-consequentialist idea), but because it leads to better consequences for society as a whole (e.g., deterrence, public safety). This recap establishes utilitarianism as a forward-looking, impartial, and calculative ethical framework, setting the stage for the introduction of a theory with a fundamentally different approach. ## Introduction to Deontology With the principles of utilitarianism freshly established, the lecture transitions to its primary subject: **deontology**. This ethical theory presents a profound challenge to the consequentialist worldview of utilitarianism. ### The Meaning of Deontology: A Focus on Duty The term "deontology" originates from the Greek word *deon*, which means "duty" or "obligation." This etymology immediately signals the theory's central focus. Unlike utilitarianism, which is a **teleological** theory (from the Greek *telos*, meaning "end" or "goal") concerned with the ends of actions, deontology is a **non-consequentialist** theory. It posits that the morality of an action is not determined by its consequences but by whether the action itself conforms to a set of moral duties or rules. The core tenet of deontology is that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the outcomes they produce. A famous encapsulation of this idea is that "the ends do not justify the means." For a deontologist, even if an action leads to the best possible outcome (i.e., maximizes utility), it can still be morally wrong if it violates a fundamental moral duty. The actions themselves, and the rules they follow or break, are what matter morally. ### Basic Duties and Rules Deontology proposes that our moral lives are governed by a set of basic or fundamental duties. These duties are often expressed as rules. The lecturer provides several intuitive examples: * Keep your promises. * Do not steal. * Be honest. * Be fair. * Repay kindnesses. These rules have two important characteristics: 1. **They are general:** They are not specific to particular individuals or situations (e.g., "Don't troll Simon on X"). Instead, they are broad principles that apply across a wide range of circumstances and to all moral agents. This generality is learned and refined over time, as a child might learn the specific rule "Don't hit your sister" and later generalize it to the broader principle "Don't hurt people without a good reason." 2. **They are basic:** They are not reducible to or derived from a more fundamental principle, such as the Principle of Utility. For a utilitarian, the duty to keep promises is only valid *because* keeping promises generally maximizes happiness. For a deontologist, the duty to keep promises is a foundational moral requirement in its own right. Deontology argues that morality is not about a single, overarching duty (like maximizing utility) but is composed of a plurality of these basic duties. ### W.D. Ross and the Seven Prima Facie Duties To provide a more systematic account of these duties, the lecture introduces the work of 20th-century philosopher **W.D. Ross**. Ross developed a highly influential version of deontology that attempts to capture the complexity of our moral intuitions. He proposed a list of seven basic duties that he believed were central to our moral experience. It is important to note that this is one possible list; other deontologists might propose different ones. Ross's seven duties are: 1. **Duty of Fidelity:** The duty to be truthful and to keep our promises, agreements, and contracts. 2. **Duty of Reparation:** The duty to make amends or compensate others for any harm we have done to them. 3. **Duty of Gratitude:** The duty to acknowledge and repay the kindnesses and benefits we have received from others. 4. **Duty of Justice:** The duty to distribute benefits and burdens fairly and to prevent or correct unfair distributions. This involves impartiality. 5. **Duty of Beneficence:** The duty to do good to others, to promote their well-being, and to help those in need. 6. **Duty of Self-Improvement:** The duty to improve our own character, talents, and abilities. 7. **Duty of Non-maleficence:** The duty to avoid harming others or causing them unnecessary suffering. This is often considered a more stringent duty than beneficence (it is more important to refrain from harming someone than it is to actively help them). The lecturer engages the class by asking for their intuitive agreement with these duties, noting that most, such as fidelity and reparation, seem widely accepted, while others, like the duty of self-improvement, might be more contentious. He also raises the question of whether the list is complete, suggesting that a distinct duty of honesty (not just promise-keeping) or duties towards the environment and non-human animals might be missing. ### Prima Facie vs. Absolute Duties: Resolving Conflicts A crucial innovation in Ross's theory is the concept of **prima facie duties**. "Prima facie" is a Latin phrase meaning "on the face of it" or "at first glance." A prima facie duty is a genuine, binding moral duty that always provides a reason for action. However, it is not an absolute duty. This is contrasted with the view of another philosopher, Immanuel Kant (who will be discussed later), who believed moral duties were **absolute**. An absolute duty is unconditional and has no exceptions. For example, if there is an absolute duty not to lie, one must never lie, under any circumstances. Ross recognized that in real-life moral situations, our duties can and do come into conflict. For example, you might have a duty of fidelity to meet a friend as promised, but on your way, you encounter a situation where you have a duty of beneficence to save a drowning child. You cannot fulfill both duties simultaneously. In Ross's system, when duties conflict, one duty can override the other. The duty that is more pressing or important in a particular situation becomes one's actual duty. In the example, the duty of beneficence to save the child's life is clearly more urgent and significant than the duty of fidelity to have tea with a friend. Therefore, the duty of beneficence overrides the duty of fidelity. The overridden duty does not simply disappear; it is still morally relevant. For instance, after saving the child, you might still have a residual duty of reparation to your friend—to apologize and explain why you broke the promise. Importantly, Ross does not provide a fixed hierarchy or an algorithm for resolving these conflicts. There is no simple rule like "beneficence always outweighs fidelity." The resolution depends entirely on the specific context of the situation and requires the exercise of careful **moral judgment**. This contrasts with the hierarchical structure of Isaac Asimov's famous "Three Laws of Robotics," which the lecturer uses as a point of comparison. Asimov's laws have a strict, built-in hierarchy (the First Law always overrides the Second and Third). Ross's duties are a non-hierarchical web, and their relative weight must be assessed in each unique case. ## Deontology in Action: Applying the Theory To further explore the differences between deontology and utilitarianism, the lecture applies the deontological framework to a series of thought experiments. ### The Trolley Problem Revisited The famous trolley problem provides a stark contrast between the two theories. In the "fat man" version, you are on a bridge and can stop a runaway trolley from killing five people on the track below by pushing a large person off the bridge into the trolley's path, killing him but saving the five. * **Utilitarian Analysis:** A straightforward utilitarian calculation would likely conclude that you should push the man. The outcome of one death is better than the outcome of five deaths. The action maximizes utility by saving the greatest number of lives. * **Deontological Analysis:** A deontologist's analysis is more complex. It begins by identifying the relevant duties. There is a **duty of beneficence** to help the five people on the track. However, there is also a strong **duty of non-maleficence** not to harm the innocent person on the bridge. Pushing the man is a direct, intentional act of killing. This creates a conflict of duties. * A deontologist might argue that the duty of non-maleficence (not to kill) is more stringent than the duty of beneficence (to save). The distinction between a direct action (killing) and an inaction (letting die) is morally significant. * Furthermore, a **duty of justice** comes into play. It is profoundly unjust to use the man on the bridge as a mere tool or means to save others. He is an innocent bystander who is being sacrificed for the good of others, which violates his rights as an individual. * Therefore, a deontologist would likely conclude that it is morally wrong to push the man, even though it leads to a worse outcome in terms of the number of lives lost. The inherent wrongness of the act of killing an innocent person overrides the good consequences. ### Justice and Fairness The lecture presents another scenario to highlight the deontological concern for justice. Imagine two possible actions, both of which produce the same net utility (10 units of pleasure): * **Action 1:** 10 people each receive 1 unit of pleasure. * **Action 2:** 9 people each receive 2 units of pleasure, while 1 person is made to suffer 8 units of pain. (Net utility: 9x2 - 8 = 10). * **Utilitarian Analysis:** Since both actions produce the same total utility, a utilitarian would see them as morally equivalent. Either action is permissible and, if they are the best options available, both are morally right. * **Deontological Analysis:** A deontologist would argue that Action 2 is morally wrong because it is unjust. The **duty of justice** requires a fair distribution of benefits and burdens. Action 2 achieves its net positive outcome by making one person suffer significantly for the greater pleasure of others. This is an unfair distribution. Action 1, where the good is distributed equally, is morally superior because it adheres to the duty of justice. For a deontologist, the *pattern of distribution* matters, not just the sum total of utility. ### The Angry Mob Example This classic thought experiment further illustrates the deontological commitment to justice. A sheriff in a Wild West town knows a homeless man is innocent of a murder, but an angry mob is about to riot and kill hundreds of people unless the sheriff hangs the innocent man. * **Utilitarian Analysis:** The consequences of the riot (hundreds hurt or killed) are far worse than the consequence of hanging one innocent person. To maximize utility (or minimize disutility), the utilitarian choice would be to hang the innocent man. * **Deontological Analysis:** A deontologist would argue that hanging an innocent person is a profound violation of the duties of **justice** and **non-maleficence**. It is an inherently wrong act. The fact that it might lead to better overall consequences is irrelevant. The individual has a right not to be punished for a crime they did not commit, and this right cannot be overridden for the sake of public order. This example powerfully demonstrates how deontology can be seen as a theory that protects individual rights against the calculus of the greater good. ## Immanuel Kant's Absolutist Deontology The lecture then turns to a different, more rigid and systematic form of deontology developed by the 18th-century German philosopher **Immanuel Kant**. Kant's philosophy is a cornerstone of modern ethics and provides a powerful, reason-based alternative to both Ross's pluralism and utilitarianism. ### The Good Will and the Role of Reason For Kant, the only thing in the world that is good without qualification is a **good will**. Talents, intelligence, wealth, and even happiness can be used for evil purposes. A good will, however, is good in itself. A good will is one that acts from duty, for the sake of duty itself, not because of any desired consequences or personal inclinations. The moral worth of an action lies in the intention or principle behind it, not in its outcome. Kant believed that morality is not a matter of feeling or consequence but is grounded in **reason**. He sought to derive the fundamental principles of morality from the very structure of rationality itself. ### The Categorical Imperative Kant argued that the commands of morality are **categorical imperatives**. An imperative is a command. A *hypothetical* imperative is a command that applies only if you have a certain desire (e.g., "If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise"). A *categorical* imperative, by contrast, is an unconditional command of reason that applies to all rational beings, regardless of their personal desires or the circumstances they are in. It is a universal moral law. Kant proposed several formulations of this single principle. The lecture focuses on two. #### First Formulation: The Formula of Universal Law This formulation provides a test for determining our moral duties: **"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."** To understand this, we must break it down: 1. **Maxim:** A maxim is the subjective principle or rule that you are acting on. For example, if you are considering lying to get out of trouble, your maxim might be: "When I am in trouble, I will lie to get out of it." 2. **Universalize:** The test requires you to imagine a world where everyone acts on your maxim as if it were a universal law of nature. 3. **Check for Contradiction:** You must then ask if a contradiction arises in this imagined world. Let's apply this to the maxim of lying. If we universalize the maxim "It is permissible to lie whenever it is to one's advantage," we imagine a world where everyone lies whenever it suits them. In such a world, the very institution of truth-telling would collapse. No one would trust anyone else's statements. The crucial point for Kant is that in this world, lying itself becomes impossible. Lying only works because there is a general expectation of truth. If everyone is lying, no one is believed, and therefore you cannot successfully deceive anyone. Your maxim, when universalized, has destroyed the very conditions that make it possible to act on it in the first place. It is self-defeating. This is a **contradiction in conception**, and it shows that the maxim is irrational and therefore morally forbidden. The duty not to lie is thus an absolute duty. #### Second Formulation: The Formula of Humanity This formulation is often considered more intuitive: **"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."** * **Ends in Themselves:** Kant argues that all rational beings are "ends in themselves." Because we are rational and **autonomous** (capable of setting our own goals and acting according to moral law), we have an inherent, unconditional worth, which he calls **dignity**. * **Means vs. Mere Means:** It is not wrong to treat people as a *means*. When you hire a plumber, you are using them as a means to fix your pipes. However, you are not treating them *merely* as a means. You are respecting their autonomy: they voluntarily agree to the work, you pay them, and you do not coerce or deceive them. To treat someone *merely* as a means is to use them in a way that bypasses or undermines their rational, autonomous consent. This includes actions like lying to them, coercing them, or manipulating them. Such actions fail to respect their dignity as a person. Killing someone to achieve a goal is a clear example of treating them merely as a means. The Angry Mob and Trolley Problem examples can be re-analyzed through this lens: hanging the innocent man or pushing the man off the bridge involves using a person as a mere object to achieve a desired outcome, which is a profound violation of the Formula of Humanity and is therefore absolutely forbidden. ### The Axe Murderer: A Criticism of Kant's Absolutism Kant's system, with its absolute duties, faces a famous and powerful objection: the "murderer at the door" scenario. An axe murderer comes to your door and asks if their intended victim is hiding inside your house. You are, in fact, hiding them. According to Kant, you have an absolute duty not to lie. Therefore, you must not lie to the murderer. This conclusion strikes most people as morally monstrous. It seems to prioritize adherence to an abstract principle over the clear and pressing duty to save an innocent life. Critics argue that this demonstrates the flaw in any system of absolute, exceptionless moral rules. It shows a failure to be sensitive to the catastrophic consequences of one's actions. Kant's response would be that you are only responsible for the morality of your own actions (not lying), and the murderer is responsible for theirs (murdering). However, this defense is widely seen as unconvincing. ## Conclusion: Deontology, Technology, and Final Criticisms The lecture concludes by connecting these abstract theories to a practical example from technology and summarizing the core debate between deontology and utilitarianism. ### Application: The Biased AI Soap Dispenser Consider an AI-powered soap dispenser installed in an office. The AI is trained to detect hands, but due to biases in its training data, it fails to recognize darker skin tones. As a result, it works for white employees but not for the one employee with dark skin. * **Utilitarian Analysis:** A utilitarian might argue that since the dispenser benefits the majority of employees and only inconveniences one, the net utility is positive. The action of installing it could be seen as morally permissible or even right. * **Deontological Analysis:** A deontologist would focus on the duties involved. While there may be a **duty of beneficence** in promoting hygiene, this is in direct conflict with a **duty of justice**. The system is fundamentally unfair and treats one employee inequitably. It also violates the **duty of non-maleficence** by causing emotional harm, frustration, and a sense of exclusion. For the deontologist, this injustice and harm would make installing the dispenser morally wrong, regardless of the benefit to the majority. The system fails to treat the one employee with equal respect and concern. This example shows how deontological principles of justice and fairness are highly relevant to modern issues of algorithmic bias and AI ethics. ### Final Criticisms and Comparison The lecture concludes by summarizing the main lines of criticism and the enduring tension between the two theories. * **Utilitarian Criticism of Deontology:** Utilitarians argue that moral rules are not sacred in themselves. They are valuable only insofar as they promote well-being. To follow a rule (like "don't lie") even when it leads to a terrible outcome (like the axe murderer case) is irrational "rule worship." Rules are made for people, not people for rules. * **Deontological Criticism of Utilitarianism:** Deontologists argue that utilitarianism fails to protect individual rights and justice. It allows for the sacrifice of an innocent individual for the "greater good," which is a violation of their inherent dignity and worth. The final class poll reveals a near-even split in preference between utilitarianism and deontology. This result underscores that both theories capture powerful and important aspects of our moral thinking. Neither provides a complete or uncontroversial account of morality, but both offer indispensable tools for ethical analysis. The lecture ends by setting the stage for the following week's topic, **virtue ethics**, which will present a third major approach to moral philosophy.