Flexible deontology

Deontology is one of the major types of moral theory (besides utilitarianism and virtue ethics). A standard charge (typically pressed by its competitors) is that deontological theories are rigorous, e.g., that it is morally impermissible to lie even to sa ve an innocent person from a murderer. The aim of my project is to develop a deontological theory that accommodates flexibility at an appropriate level. Part of the problem is the common idea that deontology prohibits types of action (killing, harming, ly ing, etc) absolutely. However, on the definition used by John Rawls in his political philosophy and applied to ethics by Charles Fried (both at Harvard University), deontology takes the right to be prior to the good. This means that moral duty is not dete rmined by the maximization of welfare, and constrains how to produce it. This definition does not entail rigorism; yet, in itself it is insufficient to steer deontology clear of the charge. The challenge is to develop a conception of the right that allows for flexible moral rules while retaining absoluteness at the level of the fundamental principle. Drawing on the Harvard philosopher Francis Kamm's non-consequentialism, and more Kantian theories like Fried's, I hope to accomplish just that.