Kant's Claim That Good Will Is The Only Intrinsic Good

1. The significance of a "good will" in Kant's ethics is that right actions have moral value only if they are done with a "good will" and to act with a good will is to act with a desire to do your duty simply because it is your duty. 2. Hypothetical imperative is what we should do if we have certain desires and categorical imperative tells us that we should do something in all situations regardless of our wants and needs. 3.

The exercise of our free will and use of rationality is individual to us, and such can not be commanded universally. Hypothetical imperatives is to do an action because it is a means to a desired end: it has inclination and justification that is outside acting of duty. Hypothetical imperatives are based on the a posteriori empirical realm. For example, Michael Vick got in trouble for dog fighting and now he is going around and speaking against it to restore his family name. So the imperative would be stated like this, Due to the fact that Michael Vick got caught dog fighting he is now going around and preaching to restore his family name. This shows that its not the categorical imperative and that he has an ulterior motive. Now if he was doing it because it was good in itself than Kant would agree that his action could be justified for all the good of all rational beings. Another hypothetical imperative would be the Denver University presidential debate. The city spent 500,000 thousand dollars on extra employees and security for the debate. As one put it there is a ying and a yang to the debate. They spent the money so that they could get public recognition and extra tax dollars. So the hypothetical imperative would go, Increasing the money we spent on the debate will therefore increase our revenue and public recognition. Kant believes that the categorical imperative should become the only principle in judging if an action is good

In Section II Kant provides an in-depth explanation of what a "categorical imperative" is. He first defines an imperative as a "command that is obligatory for a will" (30). In other words it is something we ought to do. He goes on to differentiate the two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical and imperative. An action based on a hypothetical imperative is done for the result while a

In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer argues for the utilitarian system of ethics. To thoroughly understand this system, one must first accept the notion that the individual has a moral obligation to prevent something bad from happening if it is in their power to do so. For Singer, there is no inherently good moral compass one must strictly abide by. Actions that are considered good or bad differ based on the situation in question. Contrarily, Immanuel Kant asserts that there is intrinsic good in the world in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant calls this phenomenon the “good will” (527) and claims that this will is always good, even if acting upon it does not result in any positive outcomes. The argument that he makes

In this paper, I will argue that Kant’s discussion of the will is not always practical because it is the consequences that actually matter, especially in certain situations. The main reason in support of this claim is that everyone is eventually caught in a situation where they have to choose between the lesser of two evils, which means that people should carefully think about all possible outcomes before making decisions.

Hypothetical imperative is the "practical necessity of some possible action as a means to achieving something else that one does or might want" as defined in page 19 of Bennett’s translation, whereas categorical is an action that is "objectively necessary in itself without regard to any other end" (Bennett, 19). When Kant says "We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in fact we can never, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions," in page 19, he is suggesting that even though human beings think that there only exists principled and virtuous thoughts in ourselves, there lies greater motivations and reasons behind our actions.

If somebody does something in order to bring out a particular result this would be against the definition of a good will, because there is clear motivation beyond strictly duty. The third and final rule again grows on the former two and states that duties should be completed with full respect for the law.

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

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.

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.

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

Kant’s meaning of “good will” is it is good in itself, not because of its ability to attain some proposed end. The usefulness of it cannot add to or take away from its worth. Suppose you find a bag of money, the right thing to do is to turn it in, but only after you have seen a reward offered do you turn it in. It is the right thing to do but you are seeking the offered reward and not turning it in because it is the right thing. Another example, if you receive too much money back after a purchase at a store you realize it immediately, but only offer to correct it once you realize the person behind you in line seen what had happened. This correction to gain respect and admiration by the person behind you is for doing what was right whether they were there or not. I agree in one way that if you are doing something for the praise, and selfishness it is not for the right reasons and is not “good will”, but by receiving this praise and reward it may led to better behavior even when someone is not watching to give a reward. This would be resulting in teaching morally good behavior without reward.

“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.

In Kant’s mind we all have good intentions when doing something, and for such reason, we can’t be accounted guilty for doing something wrong if the original intention was to do something good. Basically, he implied

Kant uses an example of duty to try to explain the difference he sees in something being based on good will or not. The difference lies between a person merely doing his or her duty and doing it because it is her duty. Kant believes that good will is demonstrated only in the latter of the two situations. A person is not demonstrating good will when he or she knows it’s wrong but still does their duty. On the other hand, if a person were to do his or her duty knowing it is right and not expecting some sort of reward because of the performance of the duty, than this is considered true good will and being good. A nurse in the hospital setting would not be considered as having true good will since that nurse would be expected to be compensated for a job well done but on the