Deontology is a set of normative ethical theories that guide and assess choices that one ought to make, based on duties and rules, as opposed to consequentialism, which subscribes to results.
John Rawls and Immanuel Kant are the most widely discussed philosophers of deontological ethics. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing restrictive measures imposed by governments across the world, it becomes important to discuss their approach from the point of view of state policy and popular welfare.
It may be argued that all of us are Kantians and Rawlsians in many ways today. We all believe in deontology.
Categorical Imperatives
Immanuel Kant’s idea of morality is based on categorical imperatives. Imperatives are reasons, which command the will, and can be conditional or unconditional. Those imperatives that command the will unconditionally are categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives arise only through a sense of duty and not from rights, sympathy, empathy, or welfare.
Kant offers two formulations of categorical imperatives, which lead us to become Kantians.
The first formulation is – act on only those principles or rules through which “you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, do things to others, which you expect others to do to you.
The second formulation mandates to treat persons as ends, that is, respect humanity in individuals. Every rational being exists as an end in itself and not merely for the use of society.
These two formulations can be our guiding paths in times of the pandemic. For example, panic buying or buying more than one needs (or more than one will consume over the period of time) might lead to hoarding of things so large in the quantity that some of it is wasted.
At such times we need to ask ourselves, will it be okay if everyone does this?
Of course not. There are not enough essentials for everyone to buy more than they need. Such a thought experiment inevitably leads each one of us to the question:
What if you are the last one to get to the store and won’t get any essentials for about a week because everyone bought more than they need?
In such times, hoarding would be the last choice a rational being would make.
That’s precisely what Kant is positing. The other formulation too leads to the same result. You don’t want anyone to not have basic amenities, not because you have sympathy but because you believe that they deserve to have these.
Individualism in collective interest
There have been numerous complaints in India about the government failing to provide sufficient protective gear to frontline doctors and medical staff. There have also been several reported instances of attacks against them.
Here, either of the formulations of categorical imperatives is enough for the state to act for improving the situation.
The matter of rights comes later. The basic principles of morality put forth by Kant in the 18th century are capable enough of guiding us in a pandemic. Kant would say in times of crisis, we must examine, more clearly, if we are performing our moral duties or not.
Kant can surely teach us to act in collective interest by adopting individualism. By treating persons as ends and respecting the humanity in people, one would respect their rights as humans.
This approach will eventually act in the collective interest of society. Consider the example of medical staff again. Kant suggests the state should respect the humanity in them and provide for precautionary kits. This will not only save the lives of medical staff, but in turn, also act as a barrier against the spread of the virus.
Tablighi Jamaat through the Rawlsian lens
The Rawlsian idea of choosing moral actions is to act in accordance with such principles, which would have been agreed by a reasonable person in any social contract.
John Rawls also asks for a thought experiment like Immanuel Kant. He firmly believes that we can be just without being aware of our identities and our ties with society, culture, norms.
The idea is to wear a veil of ignorance, which allows for an objective debate in the “original position” – or the place of absolute equality – on the just thing to do, by hiding social identities like religion, caste, race, or sex.
Indeed, hoarding is ethically flawed from the Rawlsian perspective. But there is something particular Indians should consider. The issue of Tablighi Jamaat, an organisation created to promote Islam across the world, can be resolved by the Rawlsian position.
The Jamaatis gathered in huge numbers for an event from the second week of March to the end of the third week in New Delhi’s densely-packed Nizamuddin area. They started dispersing slowly and went back to their respective hometowns.
Needless to say, some of these people had international travel history in February and March. Thousands of members of the Jamaat have tested positive for COVID-19.
Some of them also allegedly misbehaved with medical staff at hospitals and quarantine centres, although several of these reports were later fact-checked to be fake or misleading. This led to widespread criticism of the organisation and some Jamaat members are being ill-treated.
As a direct fallout of the incident, Indian Muslims are being slandered relentlessly by the media. The question is, conceding to the fact that it was an act of intentional negligence and is the epitome of recklessness, is it moral?
Behind the veil of ignorance, one is unaware of the membership of an organisation, as we are unaware of social identities. Thus, behind the veil of ignorance, one would never choose relentlessness slandering of a religion, community or sect of people who are associated with an organisation.
Reason? One would consider that once the veil of ignorance is lifted, we become conscious of our religious and cultural identities.
The thought of ending up as a Muslim, or a member of the Jamaat, being slandered by society, irrespective of their involvement in Nizamuddin congregation, may bother some. But on thinking about the situation from a Rawlsian perspective, they might arrive at a rational conclusion.
The use of cognitive faculty is extremely necessary for such situations when it’s difficult to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. As Rusell Moore said while arguing why we cannot prioritise young over adult life:
“A pandemic is no time to turn our eyes away from the sanctity of human life.”
The idea is not only pertinent during the pandemic, but will be important even after it is over. It is certain to some extent that inequality will rise after COVID-19. Rawls’ ‘difference principle‘ could be a rescue in such situations.
The principle advocates that after securing socioeconomic justice, the society must work for the betterment of the most vulnerable.
In John Authers’ opinion, we are all Rawlsian in this pandemic – from government officials working constantly because they feel that they have a duty to protect, as they themselves wish to be protected, to people focusing and following social distancing measures and donating to campaigns to help the poor.
Let me add to Authers’ argument – we are all Rawlsian and Kantian. We are advocating collective interest through individualism. We are focusing on our moral duty.
So in spirit, we are all operating along deontological ethics, whether we like it or not.
Views expressed are the author’s own.
Prakhar Raghuvanshi is a student of law at the National Law University, Jodhpur.
