Immanuel Kant Metaphysics of Morals Essay

We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are selfish, and for the wrong reasons as ‘motives of inclination.’ In the seatbelt example, we see a motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.

as supreme condition of its harmony with universal practical reason, the idea of the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law. (GW, 4: 431); (Kant, 1998, p. 39). Free will, moral law, autonomy freedom and rationality, have interconnection for its maintaining dignity. ‘A free will is one governed by the moral law, so if we have free wills, we are governed by the moral law. (Kant, 1998, p. xxvii). With proper application of own will control from any influences, moral law works without any contradiction. Morality is thus the relation of actions to the autonomy of the will, that is, to a possible giving of universal law through its maxims. (GW, 4: 439/46). As well as ‘rationality requires that we act under the idea of freedom, and freedom is government by the moral law, so rationality requires that we regard ourselves as governed by the moral law. . (Kant, 1998, p.

Kant explains that a plausible motivation could be either desire or fear of consequences, and these would be hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are when rational beings use means in order to achieve an end. Categorical imperatives, however, are ends in of itself. He says that actions are only good if they are carried out "just because," which would be a categorical imperative. However, he argues that actions are usually not assumed for the sake of duty alone but because of some self-interest, which forces them to act out that action where they wouldn't have otherwise. This is evident when Kant states that "in fact,

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 had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Free will must be a will that gives itself autonomy. According to the formula of autonomy, every rational agent is universal and no experience can determine universality. A rational agent may ‘will’ to act a certain way, but because they are rational beings free from sensual temptations, their ‘will’ is what imperfectly rational people ‘ought’ to act. Therefore, a rational agent’s ‘will’ becomes a universal law in which people guided by empirical experiences should abide. A rational agent is only autonomous when one can make judgments not by external “impulsion,” but by “pure practical reason.” Just as Kant states good will is a will “good in itself,” he believes a rational agent is “an end in itself” who becomes the author of the universal law which he will obey and the rest will follow. If a person can act as if one is a law-maker of a “kingdom of ends” who can be responsible for the universal law of one’s people,

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.

In Kant’s second proposition he states “an action that is done from duty doesn’t get its moral value form the purpose that’s to be achieved through it but from the maxim that is involves, giving the reason why the person acts thus.” Kant makes it clear that any action must be done for its own sake and not for the sake of any other end. The moral worth of some action is to be found in the maxim itself rather than the effects it produces. Kant says that the difference between acting from duty and acting according to duty would hold no weight. By looking only at the end of our actions we would not be able to distinguish between people who act because they reason it is their duty to do so and people who act because they desire some of the end. We could all act for self-interested reasons because we desire some outcome. Kant says that

in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.

A rational being is free to act out of principle and to refrain from mere impulse of the desire for pleasure. According to Kant, the proper exercise of reason reveals to us our moral duties. It is not, he says, the consequences of an action that determine its moral character, but the principle on which the action is based. As rational beings we must be consistent and objective.

Kant: It’s not only what you do that matters, but your motivation behind it as well. / Duty to do something depends not on the other’s rights, but on the rational assessment of what is the right thing to do based on the various types of relationships that you have with that person. / The only thing that is intrinsically good is the good will, rationality to do what is right for the right reason. / Good will is the only thing fully under our control. / Good will is being motivated to do what is good for the right reasons. The right reasons are ones that are rational. / Motivation should come from moral law or duty.

Do you think Kant is right to claim that the Categorical Imperative is the fundamental principle of morality? If so, why? If not, why not? Explain your opinion with an argument.

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be