The Differences Between Moral Motivation

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.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

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.

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.

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

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 has a moral view based on religious principals while Mill’s is based on a hedonist approach. Mill stated that the good or evil of an action depends on the affect. That the greatest action is the one that provides the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. Kant, however, would state the goodness of an action depends on the intentions behind it. When an action depends on the intentions behind it.

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

Kant and Mill held distinct moral theologies that reflected what they valued the most. While Kant justified actions that followed his two rule code of universal application and selflessness, Mill viewed any action as moral as long as it benefited the most individuals (x). In a similar way, Kant and Mill both made decisions that benefited the individuals around them. Their different moral theories both encouraged the practice of making decisions that provided the needs (Deontological theory) and happiness (Utilitarianism) of others (x). However, Kant’s shortcomings and flaws helped distinguish Mill’s greater theory that would revolutionize the world. For example, the more individuals make decisions according to Mill’s theory, the more happiness

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds

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.

“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 choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.

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