Lesson 13 of 99 in this sequence

13%

Not completed yet

Saved on this device only — not synced to an account yet.

Learning path

Step 13 of 99

Continue the sequence

ResumeReturn to this step ReviewRevisit the core idea RemediateGet repair practice Next stepChoose the next lesson manually

Completion

Review objectives and instruction
Complete the activity with manual learner confirmation
Answer every understanding-check item
Show completion feedback and reward only after the learner finishes the check

Progress

Step 13/99
15 content types
AI help source context available
Auto-advance blocked

Review objectives and instruction

AI help

Available only with source grounding, privacy limits, age controls, and measurement.

AI source context

Deontology: Duty, Rules, and Respect for Persons · deontology · duty-ethics · kant

Evidence: local lesson AI-help metadata only; source-grounding, privacy, age-safety, and measurement hooks do not prove real model quality, production telemetry, child AI approval, or AI tutor production readiness

Production AI readiness not claimed

AI source context

Assessment shape

Local lesson assessment shape is complete.

Local shape only; production answer-attempt telemetry, live ownership/RLS evidence, mastery interpretation, release, and production readiness are not claimed here.

Objectives: 5
Activity: Prompt ready
Quiz items: 4 items, 4 answer keys, 4 explanations
Reward: Completion reward ready

Assessment progress stays manual: do not auto-advance through uncertain answers, failed writes, consent, media, payment, learner choice, or AI-assisted checks.

Learning-loop evidence: Content-map contract only; persistence and production learner-progress writes require route/API evidence.

Manual policy: assessment, media, consent, payment, learner choice, failed writes, and AI-uncertain help stay under learner control.

Prerequisite: Complete or review Deontological Ethics and Kantianism

AI guardrails

Privacy

Do not send raw child free text without consent
Use source excerpts and non-identifying progress state only
Asset is not registry-gated

Age safety

Apply academy audience controls before AI-help claims
Keep child learner AI paths behind guardian/product review evidence before readiness claims

Measurement

Log AI help usage by surface and asset slug
Evaluate answer quality against source-grounded rubric before production-readiness claims
Tie remediation prompts to completion, retry, or review outcomes

Local AI-help guardrails only; they do not prove guardian approval, production telemetry, model evaluation, release, deployment, or AI tutor production readiness.

Source and rights

Source path: koydo-app/scripts/curriculum-authoring
License: ai-generated-koydo
Attribution: Attribution decision needs owner review
AI provenance: claude-opus-4-8

Source review gates: attribution_missing

Local source evidence only; this does not prove publication rights, attribution approval, AI provenance clearance, release, deployment, or production readiness.

Route review

Current route: /library/academy/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/deontology-duty-and-rules
Route source: Fallback route needs owner canonical review
Candidate route: /library/academy/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/deontology-duty-and-rules

Local route evidence only; fallback candidates need owner-approved canonical route policy before route writes, production discoverability, or readiness claims.

Content gates: canonical_target_web_missing_uses_library_fallback

lessonslessonslesson objectivesmedia scenesdrillspractice setsquizzesfeedbackcharacterscitationsconcept mapsprogressresumereviewremediationnext steps

Deontology: Duty, Rules, and Respect for Persons

with Sage

Sage the owl perches at a worn wooden lectern in a candlelit reading room, holding a brass scale, gesturing toward two open books while a compass glows softly nearby.

Define deontological ethics as judging actions by duty rather than by results.
Explain Kant's Formula of Humanity: act so that you treat persons always as ends, never as means only.
Distinguish a deontological judgment from an act-consequentialist one in a given case.
Identify a common misconception about deontology and correct it.
Apply duty-based reasoning to evaluate a simple moral scenario.

Key terms

Deontology: The family of ethical theories that judges actions by duty and the kind of act, rather than by consequences.
Formula of Humanity: Kant's principle that we must treat persons always as ends in themselves and never merely as means.
Duty: A morally required action that holds independently of whether it produces a desirable outcome.
Prima facie duty: W. D. Ross's notion of a genuine moral obligation that can be overridden by a weightier competing duty.

Where the Word 'Only' Does Its Work

The Formula of Humanity forbids treating persons 'merely as means,' and that final word carries the whole burden of the principle. Using another person is unavoidable and permissible: you rely on a bus driver, a teacher, a cashier. What is forbidden is using them solely as instruments while bypassing or overriding their rational agency — through deception, coercion, or manipulation that they could not rationally consent to. The test is whether the person could, in principle, share your end and agree to how you are treating them. Honest cooperation passes; exploitation fails.

Deontology Is Not Blind Rule-Following

A frequent caricature reduces deontology to mechanical obedience: follow the rule no matter the cost. But the rules are not arbitrary commands; they are grounded in respect for persons as rational, self-governing agents. The duty not to lie exists because deception disrespects the deceived person's rational agency, not because a rulebook happens to list it. This grounding also explains how thinkers like Ross can hold duties as prima facie — genuinely binding yet capable of being outweighed by a stronger duty — without collapsing into consequentialism, since the weighing is among duties, not among outcomes.

Worked examples

A friend asks you to write a glowing reference you know is false to help them land a job. How would a deontologist respond?

Identify the relevant duty: writing a knowingly false reference is a lie, and the duty of truthfulness is grounded in respect for those who will rely on the reference.
Apply the Formula of Humanity from the employer's side: a false reference treats the employer merely as a means to your friend's goal, deceiving rational agents who could not consent to being misled.
Consider the friend as an end too: genuinely respecting your friend may mean helping them improve or find roles that fit, not enabling a deception that harms them if discovered.
Resist the consequentialist temptation: even if the lie 'works out,' the deontologist holds the act wrong in itself because of whom it disrespects, not because of how it turns out.

Answer: A deontologist declines to write the false reference because doing so would treat the employer merely as a means through deception; respecting your friend as an end is better served by honest help than by a lie.

Welcome, thinker. I am Sage. Today we study deontology, a family of ethical theories whose name comes from the Greek 'deon,' meaning duty. This family includes Kantian ethics, W. D. Ross's prima facie duties, and contractarian theories. Our focus today is Kant's influential version, which anchors the whole tradition. Deontologists claim that some actions are right or wrong in themselves, because of the kind of act they are, not because of how they turn out. A consequentialist asks, 'What results will this produce?' A deontologist asks instead, 'What is my duty here, and does this action respect it?' Telling the truth, keeping a promise, and not using people as mere tools are treated as duties that hold even when breaking them might produce a pleasant outcome. Kant stated his most famous principle this way: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Notice where the word 'only' does its work — at the end, modifying 'means.' You may rely on a bus driver to get to school and still treat that driver as a person, by being honest and fair. The wrong comes from treating someone only as an object, with no regard for them as a reasoning, goal-setting person. Here is the key contrast with act-consequentialism, which judges each individual act solely by the results it produces. Imagine you could tell one harmful lie that would make a crowd a little happier. An act-consequentialist weighs the happiness against the harm and may permit the lie. A strict deontologist says the lie is wrong in itself because it disrespects the people you deceive, treating them as means only to your goal, no matter how the mood turns out. A common mistake is to think deontology means 'follow any rule, no matter what.' That is too crude. Deontology grounds its duties in respect for persons as rational beings. The rules matter because of that respect, not the other way around. If you feel stuck on a case, ask two questions: 'Is this action a duty or a violation of one?' and 'Am I treating each person as an end, or as a means only?'

Activity

Sort each statement under the ethical theory that best describes it: Kantian Deontology or Act-Consequentialism.

Practice

Describe a case where you use another person for help while still treating them as an end.

Take one dilemma and state how a deontologist and an act-consequentialist would each judge it differently.

Common mistakes to avoid

Deontology means following any rule no matter whatDeontological duties are grounded in respect for persons as rational beings, not in obedience for its own sake.
You may never rely on another personRelying on people is permitted; only treating them merely as means while ignoring their rational agency is forbidden.

Check your understanding

According to deontological ethics, what makes an action right or wrong?

Kant's Formula of Humanity says to treat persons 'never as a means only.' What does the word 'only' permit?

A student says, 'Deontology just means blindly obeying any rule no matter what.' Why is this a misconception?

You could tell a harmful lie that slightly improves a crowd's mood. How would a strict Kantian deontologist judge this act?

Recap

Deontology judges actions by duty rather than results, anchored in Kant's demand that we treat persons always as ends and never merely as means — a principle grounded in respect for rational agency, not in blind rule-following.

Reflect

Is there a duty you would honor even if breaking it produced a better outcome?