Kant - Three Propositions from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Essay Example

Task Kant - Three Propositions from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals seeks to develop a philosophy of morals contingent on rationality and pure reason. He attempts to do this by extrapolating the principles of morality from his three propositions, which in Kants terms serve to demonstrate how goodwill is formulated within a prescribed action. In his second proposition, Kant iterates that the moral worth of an action derives from its maxim and not from its consequences. In further deliverance of this notion, Kant determines that a prescribed action done from duty is determined in its moral worth only by virtue of the principle, or maxim, in “accordance with which it is decided upon” (Kant 4:400). This implies that the moral worth of the will to do an action lies NOT in its motive or the desired effect from that action, but in the actual principle of the will. In Kant’s view, a will is genuine and morally sound if it is derived from duty alone instead of any ancillary motive where duty simply plays a complementary role instead of being the motivating factor in its entirety. Thus, it must necessarily follow that the person taking the action has recognized an a priori goodwill principle that they seek to fulfill by taking that action; thus, the action has been brought about from duty instead of being committed for a purpose beyond that which imposed by the goodwill, rendering it of sound moral worth. Kant recognizes a third proposition in a similar way which at first seems like in stark contrast to his second proposition but in essence, follows through with the same elements of rationality by inciting a “respect for law” (Kant 4:400) which imposes a duty to respect the moral law. On further consideration of the above the two propositions, it seems apparent that Kant’s proposed requirement of rationality which encompasses his version of the universal law of morals is in play here. His three propositions go towards achieving a level of rationality that is further derived into what Kant refers to as the Categorical Imperative, any violation of which constitutes an irrational act. The crux of his argument is that the categorical imperative, which is the fundamental principle of morality, is in essence the law of an autonomous will. Such morality requires a conception of reason, which in normal daily lives goes well beyond our basic desires. In these arguments, Kant sets out to establish the foundational principle of a set of morals. What he is trying to show is that this foundational moral principle draws from a rational will in all of us, and it is this rational will that makes us possess the autonomy to act morally. This autonomy is essentially derived from duty and has the capability of denouncing all inclinations (second proposition) in order to pursue actions that are done strictly in respect of moral law (third proposition). As he rounds up his arguments in this work, he puts it clearly that there are universal moral laws, and any action that is agreeable should not only obey a moral law, but should be done to ensure morality is upheld (Kant 4:400). Any action that is not done for the sake of a moral law even if it conforms to a moral law is not logically necessary. Thus, it is prudent to observe and link the second and third propositions in pursuit of the universal law of morals. Kant seems to maintain that the second proposition is directly linked with the third proposition. However, the notion of respect seems to suggest otherwise as it exists in the third and not in the second proposition. What, then, is respect? Respect is a notion unhinged to the personal faculty of desire and is therefore not an inclination. In plain English, thus, respect is an attitude which impels goodwill actions. An action done by reason of inclination, as opposed to one by reason of respect, would seek a desired effect, and is NOT an action from duty, but an action for a purpose. This brings us to a consideration of the will to do an action and its a priori principle, deemed by Kant to be formal, and it’s a posteriori motive, deemed by Kant to be material. The will must be based on the a priori principle to do an action in order to constitute moral worth. If there are any a posteriori (or material) concerns with regards to it, it cannot logically be deemed moral, since it is based on personal interest instead of respect for moral law even if it is in compliance of a moral duty. Thus, a grocer who offers his inexperienced customers a fair price may be acting in conformity of duty but also incorporates an element of personal interest; to stay ahead of his competitors. However, a deserted and hungry traveler who chances upon some food, while still in his devoid state offers the food to his child can be said to be acting in concordance with the a priori principle as well; this would be an action from duty necessitated by respect of moral law. Similarly, respect for one’s parents, a societal necessity, raises an adherence to a duty, a duty to obey and respect your parents’ wishes. Hence, if a child’s parents order him to stay indoors instead of going outdoors while its snowing, his inclination may try to persuade him to go outside to play in the snow but it is his respect for their authority that keeps him indoors. Respect is thus distinct from inclination in such that, in Kant’s view, it applies as an “example of the moral law” (Kant 4.401n). Moreover, a person cannot have respect for the object of his proposed action, since it is virtually impossible to have respect for something you subjectively want (such as being inclined to go for a midnight snack could be the object (or inclination) of your hunger but you cannot have respect for it). In a similar way, respect is distinct from love and approval, as both are driven by inclination. Kant presents the biblical commandment of loving your neighbor, which in his opinion should incite a duty to love. However, love is considered part of a feeling, and thus, based on personal inclination. Commandment of love cannot be the object of goodwill as it is not in conformity of moral law. At the same time, kindness as a duty could bring about a will so that the object of the proposed action could be based on respect for moral law. This kindness could be construed towards goodwill which renders respect of universal moral law as the object of the commandment of love. Kant goes on to argue that moral actions, motivated by a sense of duty, are based on respect for lawfulness. This is because the rules, laws and regulations of any given setting create duties. For example, companies have stipulated duties for their employees, schools lay down duties for their students, and governments have a set of duties for their citizens. The aim of Kant’s argument is to define moral duty as an integral part of an action that arises from respect of moral law. This, therefore, means that a moral duty that drives firm will determine the actions that are morally necessary. Duty motivates the rational will and can consequently lead to moral actions. Kant believes strongly in the premise that moral requirements are exceptionally strong forces driving reason which we cannot ignore under any circumstances. To Kant, the fundamental principle of all morality, which motivates righteous, can be found in his preliminary formulation of the ‘categorical imperative’: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 4:402). Conclusion The second and third propositions are interlinked in their approach towards providing a basis to the premise of universality of moral laws. According to Kant, good will can make a person conform to his sense of moral duty, and the moral value of any action is dependent on whether the action arose out of a sense of moral duty. Therefore, any action which is in line with moral duty or obligation, but is not motivated by a sense of duty, is considered lacking in moral content. They can only have moral content if they are motivated by a sense of duty. It is this sense of duty, which Kant is trying to show, that stems from a respect for law. “To be truthful from duty, however, is something entirely different from being truthful,” (Kant 4:403). In essence, the effectiveness of the action in achieving its objective has no bearing on its moral value. Kant highlights how our respect for things influences our conformity to moral law, and gives moral value to our actions. Respect here refers to the kind of attitude we have towards things or persons, which drives us to recognize those things, or persons, as sources of authority. By respecting these things or persons, we are recognizing authority, and respecting the law. What this implicitly implies is that without respect for something, or someone, we are not going to act out of moral obligation towards that thing or person. Kant makes his arguments based on a supreme principle of morality, which relies on several assumptions. First, there is a universal set of moral laws and there are guidelines of moral behavior that are independent of any situation in which moral decisions are made. He believes that the reason that pushes for an action is significant than the results of the action and that, for an action to be good, it must be done because of a moral law and not any other purpose. All these arguments hold a lot of weight, but cannot seem to fit in every situation. For example, there are complex situations in which moral ambiguity arises, or moral compromise is required. The principle of the ‘categorical imperative’ may not apply in these situations in which there are no perfect choices for moral action. Otherwise, the arguments are truly valid and widely applicable in everyday situations, in a normal society. Work Cited Kant, Immanuel. The metaphysics of morals. London. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Read More