Ambrose Bierce and the Problem of Deontology

Deontology

Deontology posits that the rightness of an action is based upon its inherent quality, i.e., whether it corresponds to one’s duty based on one’s state in life (p. 242). Kant prescribed absolutes when it came to defining this quality, but others have not. Kant stated that a good will “is good in itself” and this goodness is not dependent upon performance or effects (p. 245). It is good, in other words, because it is doing what it should be doing. In a sense, this is similar to the idea of virtue ethics, because both rely on an idea of universals—good defined in an absolute way. Frankena posits that one may break a promise (p. 262). Ross contends that we must intuit what is right by consulting deep within ourselves (p. 276). This is more or less what Carter Druse’s father tells the young man he must do when Carter says he will fight for the Union rather than for the Confederate South. Druse ends up firing at his father in the course of the war, and it is shocking—but he convinces himself that he must do this based upon his own father’s admonition that Carter do what he believes his duty to be. But can one’s duty ever be to kill one’s own father?

The story has echoes of Plato’s Euthyphro, which is also a tale of a young man pitting himself against his father. In Euthyphro, the young man is prosecuting his father for killing a servant. Socrates admonishes the young man who thinks he is virtuous and doing what is pleasing to the gods. It becomes evident over the course of the dialogue that Euthyphro cannot actually say what is pleasing to the gods or why an action is pleasing to the gods; he is more self-righteous than anything, and does not have the least bit of concern that prosecuting his father might actually be offensive to the gods. Socrates seems to ascertain that because of the hierarchical nature of family a son should never prosecute a father, for it would be like the creature prosecuting the creator. Yet Euthyphro does not want to discuss the matter much and departs before Socrates can leave a definitive impression. Plato’s point is that one cannot simply assume that one’s actions are right based upon what one perceives one’s duty to be.

For Druse, this lesson is born home with great effect: he kills his father because he is fighting for the Union and his father is not. They are at war with one another, but this is ultimately a tragedy that shreds to pieces notions of morality. The final utterance in the short story, “Good God!” is an exclamation that reflects this tragedy. How can one actually justify such violence against one’s own father? Yet Carter does—at least initially. The reader is left to assess whether this action is right or not, but the expression, “Good God!” at the end suggests that Bierce’s own thoughts on the matter are more complex and impossible to define than any set of moral philosophy could actually put into words.