Deontological ethics can also be called duty ethics (as the term deontology is derived from the Greek words for duty and science) and places emphasis on rules and principles centred around each person's duty to be a moral being. An action is right or wrong based on the characteristics of that action itself, independent of what impact it might have and the specific situational factors. The emphasis is put more on intentions and motives, rather than consequences – in other words, the means and not the end. Simplified, this theory argues that a person is moral if they follow a set of rules (or moral truths) in their actions.
There are two main philosophers that contributed to deontological ethics: Kant and Ross. Kant argued for three main premises that must be considered when assessing the morality of an action:
⇰ Moral rules must be universalizable: "Always act in such a way that you would be willing for it to become a general law that everyone else should do the same in the same situation."
⇰ Moral rules must respect human beings: "Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means."
⇰ Actions must follow moral duty: "Do the right thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do."
Rossian duty ethics are slightly more compromising because he argues that most of us are unable to always act in the morally correct way in cases where our intuition misleads us, but that a person is moral if they make more correct choices than incorrect choices. He argues that:
⇰ The right thing to do is your "actual duty". Your actual duty is whichever of your prima facie duties is the most important in any given situation: "The actual rightness of the act is that [its] prima facie right[ness] most outweighs its prima facie wrongness."
⇰ Intuition is the tool which helps a person identify the relative importance of each prima facie duty in any given situation.
So let's talk about Snape in regard to these principles.
Moral rules must be universalizable.
If we're arguing that Snape is a good and moral person, we are saying that everyone on this earth should be able to act like him. When it comes to some of his actions, that is not at all farfetched. For example, putting his own life at risk to spy on Voldemort on behalf of Dumbledore is an honourable and moral act that is not hard to imagine as a general law. In regard to "outing" Remus as a werewolf, this premise would actually support that as a moral action because deontologist often follow absolute rules against lying, dishonesty, and hiding information in all situations.
However, I would argue, that in the majority of his actions, this is not the case. Can we make it a universal rule of morality that anyone who grows up in an unhappy/abusive home not only has the right to but, in fact, should, join a murder- and torture-happy terrorist group? I don't think so.
Moral rules must respect human beings.
From my understanding, Harry was a means to Snape. He was a means of relieving his guilt regarding Lily, and a means of continuing his rivalry against James. Even before that, he pleaded to Voldemort to save Lily even if that meant killing James and Harry in which case both of them were mere means for him to protect the "love of his life".
In proposing the Night of the Seven Potters scheme, Snape was willing to harm and even play part in the death of other individuals in hopes of helping Harry. Whilst this might have been necessary for the overall good of the Wizarding world, there is no other clearer demonstration of using other people as means than this.
Did Snape really ever respect another human being ever, except maybe Dumbledore? Comment if he did, because I sure can't remember.
Actions must follow moral duty.
There is no question about this, Snape did not do the right things for the right reasons. We might argue that he was protecting Harry, but the books themselves confirm that Snape was not protecting Harry, he was protecting Lily's son. Right before the famous (read: infamous) "always" line, Dumbledore asks if Snape has begun to care for Harry, and Snape all but scoffs and says "For him?" clearly showing that he does not care about Harry, he cares about Lily. His reasons are not there.
Even when he joins "the good side", he only does so once Lily's life is being threatened. He had no worries about being a part of a terrorist organisation that murdered and tortured hundreds of people, he had no worries about genocide or racial supremacy. Whilst he may have done the right thing, he did not do so for the right reason, and is, therefore, according to Kant, not a moral person.
One must make more correct choices than incorrect choices.
So let's think about this one. Obviously, actions are difficult to quantify, but when it comes to a character such as Snape, I think it's quite clear that his wrong choices outweigh his right ones. He joined a terrorist organisation of his own free will. He spied for Voldemort and informed him of the prophecy which made him want to kill Harry, of his own free will. And then after realising that those choices were wrong, he made the right choice of joining Dumbledore's side.
⇰ Fidelity: we could argue that in some of his choices, Snape did act in a way that is loyal. Maybe he became a Death Eater out of loyalty for his Hogwarts House, he told Voldemort about the prophecy out of loyalty for him. But let's return to Ross's rule of actual duty. Does anyone here think that loyalty in this situation outweighs the other prima facie duties? Also, in regard to fidelity, maybe you shouldn't call your best friend a racial slur.
⇰ Reparation: let's talk about Snape's redemption arc. Put your hand up if you think years of bullying (and even terrorising) your students and favouriting others is excused because you have the Chosen One some of your memories that showed you loved his mum? I didn't think so.
⇰ Gratitude: hmm... Comment a single situation where Snape showed gratitude to anyone.
⇰ Justice: this is obviously a difficult one to define, but I would argue that fair treatment of your students regardless of their House or family is a good place to start. We could argue that in the long run, he did act in the name of justice once be began helping Harry with the Horcruxes which inevitably did help save the world, so we can give him this one.
⇰ Beneficence: one thing I know for sure is that Snape always acted to benefit himself. Even when he spied for Dumbledore, even when he acted on behalf of the Order, I would argue that he did so for selfish reasons, those reasons being guilt and wanting to save Lily so that he could be with her.
⇰ Self-improvement: I'll leave this blank because I can't think of a single thing. Comment if you can.
⇰ Non-maleficence: he was literally Neville's boggart in a world where Voldemort existed and that is all I have to say about maleficence.
Whether or not you're willing to grant Snape fidelity, reparation, and justice, in the grand scheme of things, he acted immorally more often than he did morally, so Ross would not view him as a moral person either.
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Though there are scenarios where Snape does act in moral ways according to deontology, I think we can see that in total, he would not be considered a moral person by someone who subscribes to this school of thought. Feel free to comment your interpretation if you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing it. But as per my reading of the books: Snape is not a hero.
