In this case, deontological as it is commonly understood at present by the majority which is taken to meant strict compliance with rules like those from God.
There are a wide range of meaning from the history of the term 'deontology'.
When Kant's Morality is taken to be deontological, it is deemed to be in the narrowest sense, i.e. strict compliance in actions, i.e.The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[8] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement).[9][10] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie (ethical code), in the context of professional ethics.
Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a moral obligation may arise from an external or internal source, such as a set of rules inherent to the universe (ethical naturalism), religious law, or a set of personal or cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal desires).
WIKI
If there is a murderer at the door asking whether the targeted-victim is in the house, the moral agent must tell the truth and not lie to save the targeted-victim who is actually known to be in the house.
This view of Kant as deontological made Kant very stupid. That was not Kant's intended meaning.
To avoid this, I would prefer to avoid associating 'deontology' with Kant's Morality.
Actually, Kant full spectrum of Morality & Ethics cover both rules, consequences and reasons for both.Kant isn't a deontologist NOT because he isn't consistent with the categorical imperative (that's silly) but because deontology is a hopelessly confused term that we should probably abandon.
It really only serves to box all sorts of very different non-consequentialist views together in an unhelpful way and as a crutch for teaching undergraduates ('there are three main approaches to normative ethics...')
Jens Timmerman argues that the term should be abandoned and that, on a reasonable construal of it, it doesn't really apply to Kant in his 'What's wrong with deontology?' Before him, Barbara Herman has also advocated a non-deontological reading of Kant in 'Leaving deontology behind.'
It's worth noting that these views aren't as radical as they may sound. A lot depends on what you understand by 'deontology'. Herman and Timmermann's Kant is the same Kant you know and love - they're just arguing that boxing him in as a deontologist serves to obscure important parts of his ethical theory, like his focus on the good (and not just the right.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... ctually_a/
So Kant's morality is not strictly deontological like those of Abrahamic-theistic morality.
