According to dictionary.com;
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
de·on·tol·o·gy /ˌdiɒnˈtɒlədʒi/ [dee-on-tol-uh-jee]
–noun ethics, esp. that branch dealing with duty, moral obligation, and right action.
And according to wikipedia.org;
Deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: δέον (deon) meaning obligation or duty) is "the theory of duty or moral obligation."[1] Deontology is also known as nonconsequentialism.
Deontologists argue the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the goodness or badness of its consequences. In contrast, consequentialism holds that the right act or system of rules is the one that maximizes or satisfies good consequences as determined by an impartial determination of good and evils. Deontological ethics typically is thought to involve two important elements: prerogatives and constraints. Prerogatives deny that agents must always seek to perform actions with optimum consequences. Constraints place limits on what actions agents may undertake in an effort to bring about their own or the impartial good.
Isn't that frikkin interesting? I had no idea there were actually theories like these. Absolute ignorance, I know.
In case you're interested, here's more.
Deontological theories
The most famous deontological theory is that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. (I insert here, that's almost as bad as Gaylord Focker) In his theory, Kant claimed that various actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and that, conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings are morally right. Therefore, Kant claimed, we all have a duty to avoid the first type of act and perform the second type of act.
Kant believed that this duty was absolute. He drew a distinction between contingent duties, which only need to be carried out under certain empirical circumstances, and categorical duties, which always need to be carried out, because they are based on a priori reasoning about the general nature of things, and thus apply no matter what the circumstances are. Kant thought of the duty to promote human freedom and rationality as the only truly categorical duty. He called this duty the categorical imperative, and described it at great length in his writings. Of the five formulations of the categorical imperative Kant developed, the three most well-known and significant are:
-Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
-Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
-Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
Modern day deontolgists include Thomas Nagel and Frances Kamm. Of the contemporary deontological theories, Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm has attracted the most recent attention, and is an effort to derive a deontological constraint which coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This Principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case judgments, many of which involve deontological intutions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of 5 others. Yet we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would kill 5 innocent and immobile people onto a side track where 1 innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case.
Criticism of deontology
The most pressing difficulty for deontologist philosophers is justifying constraints. Robert Nozick famously points out what has become known as the paradox of deontology. If we are truly concerned about rights (such as the right not to be harmed in certain ways expressed by Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm) then it seems logical we should seek to minimize violations of these rights. However, deontological constraints themselves prohibit such action. For example, consider a case where someone has maliciously sent a trolley hurtling towards 5 innocent and immobile people at the end of a track. The only way to stop the trolley and save the 5 is to throw 1 innocent bystander in front of the trolley. If the 5 are killed, this would constitute 5 violations of the PPH. If the 1 is thrown in the way, this constitutes one violation of the PPH. However, the Principle of Permissible Harm clearly rules out throwing 1 in front of the trolley. Hence the paradox. In order to respect the rights of the five, deontologists tell us we must respect the rights of the 1.
Many Act or Case utilitarians offer critiques of deontology as well as Rule Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, an early utilitarian philosopher, criticized deontology on the grounds that it was essentially a dressed-up version of popular morality, and that the unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really a matter of subjective opinion. John Stuart Mill, who lived in 19th century Britain, argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance.
Shelly Kagan, a current professor of philosophy at Yale University, notes in support of Mill and Bentham that under deontology, individuals are bound by constraints (such as the requirement not to murder), but are also given options (such as the right not to give money to charity, if they do not wish to). His line of attack on deontology is first to show that constraints are invariably immoral, and then to show that options are immoral without constraints.
Another, unrelated critique of deontological ethics comes from aretaic theories, which often maintain that neither consequences nor duties but "character" should be the focal point of ethical theory. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, sought to describe what characteristics a virtuous person would have, and then argued that people should act in accordance with these characteristics.
Also see, Notes On Deontology. - http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/deon.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On an entirely unrelated note, I've finally gotten the pictures taken on our anniversary from Jay. The man was sooo lazy abt sending them over via the net, and he came over to my place with the stuff in a thumbdrive. Weirdo.
Heeere they are!
Lentil soup and bread. I love the soup tho it's not very delicious. Comfort food, sorta.
I love Sofra!
He's giving me a come-hither look while lapping at his soup. Mmm.
Oblivious to his intentions.
Analysing the Turkish tea cup thing while waiting for the kebabs.
THE KEBABS.
I LOVE SOFRA!!
They even provided us with weapons. Yet another reason to love Sofra.
He's acting all demure and shy.
Playing dead.
At Starbucks at Bugis Junction, the place we had our first drink together. He's making the Fresh Prince's 'i love you' face and he hates the pic but I love it, so here's a minute version. :-D
Thumbwrestling. The activity we indulged in first time we met too.
Blatant cheating.
He tore off the label on my shawl. Since I complained I wldn't know how to wash it later, he got a pic of it for my future reference.
Now you all know the shape and rough size of Jay's camera.
Same stuff.
Same stuff too.
Yeeeeeep.
I think his eyes look damn pretty in this shot. :-D
Mom's screaming.
Toodles!
