Being Good without Qualifications

In his work, Kant introduces the concept of duties and specific applications of inherent good will. He identifies three logical statements, the first of which is that actions are truly good when they are undertaken for the sake of duty alone. This means that those who offer help or solution to an ethical dilemma do not do so out of empathy, but for the

To be able to reach this point, Kant used the process of elimination between inclination, prudence, and duty. In his paper, Kant explains that a person cannot achieve good will if they use inclination (what you desire) because to him, this doesn’t constitute moral actions. For example, in Kant’s eyes a parent who takes care of their children because is what they desire to do because they love them shouldn’t be morally praised because they are doing it for themselves rather than doing it because they acknowledge they have an obligation and it is the right thing to do to fulfill that obligation. He continues and goes on to refute prudence (rational self interest). To better understand this concept, we can think of the example of a lady who believes she can earn a greater income if she cheats her customers, but refuses to do so, not because she knows it’s the wrong thing, but because she fears being caught and losing her customers. By providing this example,

In Kant theory, morality is a matter of duty. A duty is an obligation, we must do it even if we don’t want to. Morality will consist in acting out of duty. Must be motivated by sense of duty. It’s like a law or rule that applies universal. We must follow it. If a law says we cannot kill, we have to follow it not just because we have to but also is in accordance with our with our moral duty. In acting from duty, acting according to law and for the right reason. For example, it is my duty not to kill. Killing is wrong. The Good Will freely chooses to do something precisely because it is one’s moral duty, and that duty is dedicated by reason. The only motivation that counts for good will is rightness of action. We control our Good will, it is solely based on our own individual intentions, will and motives. If we make it our moral duty to obey laws, we are not just acting on it because we want to and people tell us to but it is something that we are dedicated to and must follow it. We have a

The good will calls for certain obligations known as duties. Kant suggests that duty ought to be done out of acknowledgement of the importance of moral law. The first proposition of duty that Kant puts forward states that actions are good only when they are committed out of a sense of duty. Moral actions are not done in the desire of a particular result, and the importance is instead found in the purpose behind the action. Kant argues that moral worth is never found in what is hoped to be attained by a certain choice, but in the maxim according to which the action was done. Duty should always be done out of recognition of significance of abiding by the moral law.

First we’ll start with the will. Kant likes to focus on the will that can only be found in “rational beings”, which Kant defines as those capable of moral deliberation (humans). Kant states “the will is a capacity to choose only that which reason independently of inclination cognizes as practically necessary, that is, as good.”(Kant) In other words, “the will is nothing more than the capacity for practical

Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or

We can be doing the right thing according to what we believe is morally right but at the same time it doesn’t have to be good will. For example, I could think that I’m doing the right thing of tearing down homes to better a community but that’s not actually my “duty,” so therefore it’s not a good will. On another hand

In the excerpt Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant presents a profound argument that how right an action is, is determined by intention of the principle that is being acted on. He believes that the outcome of an action is irrelevant because it is out of our control, it doesn’t matter if what we genuinely intended is accomplished. But, we can control the will behind the action. He explains, “The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of its willing, i.e. it is good of itself” (124). Kant uses an example of two shopkeepers that treat their customers in the same way, but are in fact motivated very differently. The first shopkeeper gives the correct change to the customer, but for selfish purposes. He is scared of getting caught for trying to cheat an inexperienced customer like a child. Plus, obtaining a good reputation of being an honest shopkeeper improves his business. The second shopkeeper gives honest change to the customer simply because he is an honest man, and it is morally right. Even though both shopkeepers did the

Kant whole idea about about morals is that good will is good when the action is carried out even if there is no happiness or positive benefits that come from it. The responsibilities that then come from doing that good will are called duties and duties are supposed to be performed in a non influential manner. When a duty is done to gain happiness or out of love, then that person would be acting in an immoral manner from Kant’s viewpoint because he is not doing the duty for itself alone.

Thus, the ends or consequences of an action never justify the means or motive of the action. So, if someone were to act morally right the end result of their action would not matter, whether it be positive or negative. Furthermore, Kant believes there is only one good thing in the world, good will. “A good will is an intention of a rational being which acts in accordance with universal moral laws that the human automatically and freely give themselves.” The good will is the only true good there is and goodness only comes when we act a certain way. Thus, people must contemplate their actions before they pursue them. Kant believed in a principle of morality called, The Categorical Imperative, which determines whether a moral duty is good or bad. In the Kantian ethics it is stated that, “a right act has a maxim that is universalizable” (Pence 11). Kant uses the word maxim which is a rule or principle you act on. So, this means our maxims should be something everyone is able to do, not making any exceptions for yourself. For example, keeping promises; if you want others to keep their promises you should be obligated to keep yours also. Additionally, Kant argues that “people are free only when they act rationally.” It is said that people act based on their emotions but Kant theory argues otherwise. Deontological theory states that we do not act morally because it is what we’re accustomed to but rather when we understand the rules and

Kant argues the will must be commanded by the principle; ‘’one must be able to will that a maxim of our action should become a universal law.’’ This principle is only accomplishable through the practice of reason free from any incentive or influence, something the hypothetical imperative cannot do. In practice, this means if genocide was a universal law, the human race would soon become extinct, thus it is not a practical principle. Whereas acting in accordance to prolonging and sustaining human lives is a universal law everybody should desire. Therefore, the good will is guided by rationale.

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

Kant believed that the one unconditional good thing is good will (Fincke, 2009). In other words, any other candidate for 'good ' – such as courage or happiness – can be turned evil through immoral intentions. For example, it takes courage to stand up for someone getting bullied in the park, however, it also takes courage to bully someone in the park. As you can see, courage without good will, or good intentions, can be the downfall of another person. An argument that is well known to be made by Kant goes as follows; a shoe keeper might do what is

Good will comes from doing actions out of duty. The definition of duty here is similar to the sense of pledge. This is very specific in that the action must be done because of duty, not simply in accordance with duty (Kant 10). Performing actions in this way gives the action itself moral worth. Both duty and moral worth

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.