have you ever wondered what actually defines something as good or bad I'll share with you two scenarios and we will discuss it afterward imagine this a neighbor I'm on good terms with decided to bring a little joy into my day by gifting my dog some highquality salmon treats well it turned out he didn't know my dog has a salmon allergy which caused a sick pup and an unexpected overnight stay at the vet I was pretty disheartened despite the neighbors good intentions it end ended up doing more harm than good my dog had a tough time and I was left feeling dispirited now there's another neighbor who isn't exactly a fan of mine trying to stir up trouble he sneaks into my garden at night and releases a harmful substance hoping to make my dog sick and me sad but guess what thanks to a fortunate twist of fate chilly weather that night my dog decides to stay inside surprisingly the substance does wonders for my persistent insect problem despite the neighbors's not so friendly intentions it turns out he unintentionally helped me achieve a pest free Garden however most of us would still see his actions as morally questionable for most his behavior is viewed as wrongdoing but what determines the morality of an action intentions or Consequences I think most of us will answer that the intention is more important thus most of us tend to think like deontologists de ology is an ethical theory that states some actions are right or wrong in themselves regardless of their consequences deontological ethics is contrasted with consequentialism which is an ethical theory that asserts what makes an action right or wrong is the outcome of the action not the action itself many of us prioritize intentions when assessing morality focusing on whether the act itself is inherently good or bad rather than its outcomes positive consequences from a negative deed don't automatically make it virtuous and vice versa take the example of the first neighbor causing destruction despite the negative outcomes many of us might still see him as morally upright due to his good intentions this suggests that our initial Judgment of an action's morality is primarily based on intentions more than the results following thereafter the German philosopher Emanuel Kant is the most important thinker associated with deontology Kant key argument is based on the belief that the morality of actions is not determined by their consequences but rather by the motives of the individual performing them according to Kant ethics is about having a good will where the only way an action is deemed morally right is the will or motive of the person involved as it is deontological ethics sounds pretty logical but at the same time it's a utopian idea and I'll explain why as mentioned earlier according to deontological ethics certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences if an act is considered immoral there are no circumstances under which the ACT can be considered morally acceptable for example individuals are obligated to tell the truth even if doing so might lead to unfavorable results Kant strongly argues that a lie always harms another if not a human being then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general as it undermines the very source of right but imagine that by telling a lie you could save a life would you do it Kant would probably say you shouldn't insisting that you're morally obligated not to lie even if a murderer is at your door asking about your family this leads us to a significant point there are things that are considered morally wrong regardless of the circumstances for example it is always wrong to kill someone no matter what the outcomes might be right now imagine if we could go back in time to prevent someone like like Hitler from causing harm perhaps by intervening while he was a teenager according to consequentialism there's no doubt that it would be the right thing to do because the result is saving the lives of millions however deontologists including Kant would view this act as immoral in their ethical framework murder is inherently wrong regardless of potential positive outcomes such as saving lives consider another scenario a person with a gun enters a school putting innocent lives at risk in such a situation the only way to stop them might involve shooting which we universally agree is morally wrong however faced with this dilemma should the guard Shoot Many would argue that it's the right thing to do these examples highlight the moral dilemmas inherent in deontological ethics where certain actions are always considered wrong even in situations that seem to justify them that's it for today let me know what you think in the comments don't forget to like the video thank you and stay tuned