Kant really focuses his arguments regarding to moral rules that are necessary and universal, such as moral law that would hold up to all rational beings. In Kantian ethics, Kant offers two different explanations of moral law, the formula of the universal law of nature and the formula of humanity as an end in itself. In this paper, I am going to focus on explaining, reconstruct, and analyze on the first topic which is the formula of the universal law of nature regarding to the lying promise. Kant believes that our moral judgment is right, just with the wrong reasons. Kant’s account of moral judgment is purely from reason. In the preface of “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Kant, Kant mentioned that “my aim here is directed …show more content…
In this quote, Kant is expressing that a good will has to be the influence to human’s mind in order to do something good and morally worthy. Moderation, which Kant also explained in this chapter, would have a negative effect to one’s judgment about moral. He believes that it would have a negative effect because it would not be an action form one’s rationality. To be a purely good action, and morally worth, Kant says that “A good will is not good because of its effects or accomplishments, and not because of its adequacy to achieve any proposed end: it is good only by virtue of its willing – that is, it is good in itself…” (317). So, one’s action must be good in itself because of the will of that person doing the action, which later on Kant would say that the person must act from duty. For example is our intelligence, intelligence is a good thing as long as we use it for good reasons. Same kind with wealth, power, and health. Kant also says that happy people need good will. Moral worth is a good will as long as it is according to the duty. The will is good because it allows to pursue some kind of happiness, which is not right. Kant says that it is good only if it is according to the moral law. Kant is making a separation between inclinations, sentiments, desires, and so on because they are not related to the good will, although they are not universal.
Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.
Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral
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.
Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.
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.
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
Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming
Good will enables an individual to perform an effect. Kant argues that it is important that all acts must be done through the use of good will. This is because by acting through your good will, you are making sure the action can also be good. This then can lead to good consequences. Although, personally, this has made me think of bad actions leading to good consequences, that sometimes it is good
Immanuel Kant argues that morality is based off of rationality. A maxim, or a moral code, that can be universalized without falling apart would be considered rational and therefore morally just. Kant urges us to make moral decisions using maxims that can be universalized, think about the act in and of itself instead of the potential consequences, and also to never treat anyone as a means only, but as an end. In making moral judgments that can only be universalized we are given a formula to guide us.
According to Kant’s Good Will theory, “good will” means to act out of an overarching sense of duty and rightness. In order for an action to be borne of good will, it must be done solely because it is the right thing to do, and not because of the results that the action will bring. The only thing, Kant says, that is good without qualification is good will itself. In order for something to be good without qualification, it must be good on every occasion that it is used. Kant supplies three categories of things that are good, but only with qualification: talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune or nature. These three categories can only be good when they are had in conjunction with good will. The will is only good through its motives and intentions.
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
Moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy which focuses and investigates the ideas of right and wrong and good and evil behavior. Moral philosophers have researched and justified the logical consequences of moral or ethical beliefs.When we think of morals, we think of rules that tell us which actions are right and which are wrong. But, do human beings have the ability to judge for themselves, based on the facts of a situation, what is right and wrong, what they should do and not do? Well, according to Immanuel Kant, who is one of the most influential philosophers of all times, believes that human beings should not be making decisions based on the facts of a situation, but should act according to universal moral codes that apply in all situations regardless of the outcome. Kant refers to these universal moral codes as categorical imperatives and must be fully followed at all times across all circumstances.
In accordance with Kantian ethics, to determine the moral worth of an act, one must first ask if the reason of the act is worthy of respect. “A dutiful action from any motive, aside from duty, does not express a good will.” An action has moral worth only if it expresses a good will. Acts that have other sorts of motives have no genuine moral worth. This shows that the motive of the act is what makes the act moral. Feelings and desire as a motivation of an action is on a lower classification of morality, but why then is that acts done out of feeling and desire have less moral worth than that of duty. Nothing is actually wrong or less worthy if one acts out inclination since there is a desire to do what is good (Johnson,
All humans have some type of understanding of what good will is, as it is a reason or a determination of the proper thing to do at the right time or period. Rather than the human reaction to try and satisfy or make oneself happy, humans would be and should be more naturally inclined to make possible good will and being good which this will bring about unintentional happiness or satisfaction. Then Kant going on to explain that by using reason in a situation, humans would not be able to attain good will as reason cannot be used on a unconditional basis and that would cloud judgement.