Kant: Grounding for Metaphysics and Morals

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

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

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.

“If the action would be good solely as a means to something else it is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical”. Kant

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as an action that addresses what "should" or "ought" to be done. He believed that the necessity of performing a certain action was based on other desires. This particular action would only be important if it was beneficial for another reason. It is prudent that a man feel the responsibility to achieve his own wants. However, Kant speaks of a second group of imperatives known as "categorical imperatives."

Immanuel Kant discusses the second and third translation pieces in “Key Selections.” In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and On Groveling, Kant explains that humans have an animal-like nature. If Kant was charged with the statement, “Bottom line, humans are nothing more than insignificant creatures with an animal nature,” he would have a mixed response to the charge. Although Kant may not believe that neither humans or animals are insignificant, he would recognize the relation and similarities between humans and their animal-like nature. In Kant’s, On Groveling, he states that “even though the human being is above these other animals in having intelligence and can set his own ends, these advantages give him still only an external

In chapter one, Kant discusses the good will, and he wants to show us the idea of a good will by going through the concept of duty. Kant gives many examples about duty to find out whether the action was done from the obligation or the self-interest.

As it is a stated fact, Kant’s claim is that good will is the only intrinsic good. Now, what exactly does Kant mean by this claim that he makes? I think that it is important to mention what good will is. So, good will has two parts, “one is the ability to determine what your duty is and two is have a steady commitment to do your duty for its own sake.” Intrinsic goods are “those things that whose value consists in the fact that they help to bring about other good things.” So what exactly does Kant mean when he says that good will is the only intrinsic good? Basically it boils down to this, you have to have the right intentions when doing something and obey the moral law and in those things are where you find what is intrinsically good.

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he talks a lot about the different types of imperatives, and different formulas and the principles of morality. Before talking about anything else, it is important to understand the definition of imperative. An imperative is “expressed by an ought” also known as a command and they tell what the relation is in the objective laws. The different types of imperatives that Kant discuses in this book are hypothetical, categorical, technical, and pragmatic imperatives. He first starts talking about hypothetical imperative which he says “represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one wants (or may possibly want).” In other words, this

CI is the method in which every human being can decide to exercise his or her duties. It is the individual himself to determine what to do or not do. By nature this way is categorical because of it is applicable to anyone but without exemptions. Its nature of command makes it also imperative. So Categorical Imperative means understanding the command that applies to everyone without exception.

Kant believed that certain types of actions, including murder, theft, and lying, were absolutely prohibited. There are two questions that we must ask ourselves, “can I rationally will that everyone act as I proposed to act” and “does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposed?” Kant has created the categorical imperative in 1785, to determine what it means for one’s duty. An imperative is a command, there are two imperatives that Kant talks about the hypothetical and the categorical imperatives. Each imperative are different but it comes out to the same outcome. Hypothetical imperative is the imperative command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. Categorical imperative is the command

“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.

Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions. For example, gifts of nature such as understanding, wit, and judgement, or gifts of fortune such as power, riches, or honor may be used for the good or bad, and they also have limited