Deontological perspectives: the vendor gift case
The word deontological is the whole constraint. Arguing that the gift is wrong because it might damage the company is a consequentialist answer wearing the right vocabulary, and it does not satisfy the prompt.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Duty-based reasoning, not consequences in Kantian dress
The single most common failure on this assignment is answering it consequentially while using deontological words. A post that says accepting the gift is wrong because it could expose the company to reputational damage, or because it might lead to a poor vendor choice, has given a consequentialist argument. Deontology locates the wrongness in the act and the duty rather than in what follows from it. The relevant question is whether the person deciding among vendors can accept a benefit from one of them without violating a duty he already holds by virtue of his role — a duty of fidelity to the employer whose interests he was appointed to serve, and a duty of fairness to the competing vendors who were told the process was open. Both duties bind whether or not anything bad happens, and saying so explicitly is what marks the analysis as deontological.
Kant's formulations give the analysis its spine. Universalise the maxim: if everyone in a procurement role accepted benefits from bidders, competitive tendering would no longer function as tendering, which makes the maxim self-defeating rather than merely unpopular. The humanity formulation is sharper still, since offering a benefit to influence a decision treats the decision-maker as a means to securing the contract rather than as someone exercising judgement. Bring in Ross's prima facie duties if you want to handle the genuinely hard part, which is that duties conflict — a duty of gratitude toward a long-standing supplier can pull against fidelity — and Ross gives you the vocabulary to say which duty is overriding here and why. Close on what should be done rather than only on what is forbidden: disclosure, recusal, and a written policy are the deontologically coherent responses, because each one restores the conditions under which the duty can actually be discharged rather than merely avoiding a bad outcome.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish a deontological argument from a consequentialist one dressed in deontological vocabulary.
- 02Apply the universalisability and humanity formulations of the categorical imperative to a concrete business case.
- 03Handle conflicting prima facie duties and justify which is overriding.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An initial post analysing the case using duty-based reasoning throughout.
- 02Explicit application of at least one formulation of the categorical imperative.
- 03A treatment of at least one competing duty rather than a single obvious one.
- 04A recommended course of action, with APA citations.
Naming the duties, then universalising the maxim
State the duties in play
Identify the role-based duties of the person selecting vendors and the duty owed to competing bidders.
Universalise the maxim
State the maxim precisely and show that generalising it undermines the practice it depends on.
Apply the humanity formulation
Explain how an inducement treats the decision-maker as a means to the contract.
Handle the conflict
Name a competing prima facie duty and justify which is overriding in this case.
Recommend action
Propose disclosure, recusal or policy, framed as what duty requires.
Reading the categorical imperative before applying it
Recommended databases
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Business Ethics Quarterly
- Your course readings for this unit
- Institute for Supply Management code of conduct
Search sequence
- 1.Read the Stanford entry on deontological ethics to fix the distinction between agent-centred duties and consequences before writing.
- 2.Check a professional procurement code of conduct — it states the duties this case turns on in practical language.
- 3.Use Ross on prima facie duties if you intend to argue a conflict, so the terminology is correct.
- 4.Cite your unit's assigned readings; a post that cites only outside sources reads as though the material was skipped.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Deontological Ethics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2020
The authoritative statement of agent-centred duties and constraints, needed to separate a genuinely deontological analysis from a consequentialist one wearing its vocabulary.
- 02
Kant's Moral Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2022
The formulations of the categorical imperative in the form this analysis needs to apply rather than merely cite.
- 03
Information Technology and Moral Values
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy · 2018
A model of applying normative theory to a concrete professional decision rather than discussing it abstractly.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Giving consequentialist reasons — reputational risk, bad outcomes — while calling the analysis deontological.
- Stating the categorical imperative without ever applying it to the facts of the case.
- Treating the case as having only one duty in play.
- Ending on prohibition without saying what the parties should actually do.
Submission checklist
- Is every reason you give about duty rather than about outcome?
- Have you universalised a specific maxim, stated in full?
- Have you named at least two duties and said which overrides?
- Does the post end with a concrete recommended action?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.