The Significance of Motives and the Role of Duty in Morality in Kants Work - Essay Example

Morality is one of the main philosophical issues that Immanuel Kant covered in his extensive coverage of various philosophical subjects. In his work ‘The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals’, Kant asserts that only certain features make something or someone to be considered right or moral. That is, something does not just become right or moral without having the desired characteristics of right. Kant insists that” good will/good motive is the only thing that is entirely right and does not require any further features to qualify as right” (Abbot, P. 1)1. Although some virtues such as courage, resolve, wit, judgment and perseverance could also be regarded as good, the motives or/and the motivation behind the existence and use of these traits could render them immoral. If the motives behind these actions or traits are not good then they cease to be right or moral. Similarly, if one’s good fortune, health, honor, riches and power are clouded by ill motives, then these situations and features become immoral. In addition, if pride, happiness and mind are not influenced by good will, these traits become immoral. “Even traits such as moderate affections, self-control and passions are also not morally upright as if they are not accompanied by the right and good qualification” (Abbot, P. 1)1. This paper explores Kant’s assertion that motives and role of duty have quite a significance on morality, giving illustrations to the effect that motives and duty have a bearing on morality. Kant’s Philosophy on Morality and Motives In discussing good will, Kant defines the right motive as doing the right thing, doing one’s duty and respecting the moral law in the process. In other words, to be rational is to constantly have the right motive/good will. Most important to morality, according to Kant, is thus a good will that makes people to automatically do their duty. Kant’s philosophy on morality was based on what he referred to as the “Categorical Imperative” (CI), which bases morality on a standard of rationality. “Formulations of the CI bring together the perspectives of one who seeks to act on principles that all others could share and one who seeks to act on principles that that respect all others’ capacities to act.” (Kant, P. 179, Par. 2)3. In other words, to violate the CI is tantamount to immorality. In fact, other philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes agreed with Kant on this perception of morality, especially his basing of morality on the CI standards of rationality. As mentioned, according to Kant, the fundamental of morality as contained in the CI is the law of an autonomous will and a self-governing reasoning in which people are viewed as possessing equal worth and as deserving equal respect. A rather useful work of Kant’s on morality is “The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”. It covered morality-related issues like the aims and methods of moral philosophy, good will, moral worth and duty and duty and respect for moral law, among others. In later writings such as “The Critique of Practical Reason”, “The Metaphysics of Morals”, “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View” and “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason” he would later refine, develop, modify and enrich some of his views in this piece of work. Deductions from Kant’s Ideas There are two core and interesting conclusions that may be deduced from Kant’s ideas about morality and good will. First, under no circumstances should people consider their morality as something they could just lose or forfeit in exchange for personal desires. In fact, “desirable traits such as courage, perseverance and cleverness may lose their values and get diminished or sacrificed in certain circumstances” (Abbot, P.1)1. For example, one’s courage may lose its value if the said courage is used to cause injustice or cruelty to others. Thus, Kant recommends that people should not restrict themselves on when to give moral considerations the weight and the importance they deserve in all circumstances. The second lesson deduced from Kant’s ideas on morality and motives is that whatever one pursues, possesses or the prevailing circumstances, never should one stop possessing and maintaining his/her moral standards. Even in matters of intelligence or involving pleasure, people should always stick to their basic moral convictions and standards. The good will inherent in an individual should therefore not be used to achieve certain valuable goals for own self or for those close to us at the expense of others who we may “use and treat as a thing or tool and not as an agent.” (Onora, P. 178, Par 2)4. This is especially true in situations in which realizing these ends and their values could jeopardize one’s possession and observance of good will. Morality and Duty Kant also emphasized the role of moral law in defining good will as the drive to make decisions that meet societal moral demands. Moral laws are standards that restrict peoples’ desires, relating good will and moral law to duty. In this regard, Kant felt that if a good or divine will is driven by the sense or thought of duty, such a will may not qualify as good. This argument is supported by the assertion that an entirely free and good will should not be conditioned by desires such as that of duty since such desires could be operating independent of morality. It is these desires that are free of moral demands, which constrain peoples’ goodness, especially where one considers it his/her duty to act or speak in a certain way. In this case, such an act or omission may have been done otherwise were it not a call of duty to act in a moral manner. Kant thus recommends that while analyzing goodness, morality and motives, people should look out for any indications that their source of motivation is the thought that they are constrained to act morally since it is their duty and not that they may have wanted to. Besides the call of duty, the other motives that Kant lists as possible drivers of actions that may not be categorized as good will include sympathy, self-interest, self-preservation and happiness. Although actions driven by these motives could be worth of praise and could have been undertaken to express good will, they do not qualify as good will since they lack ‘moral worth’. Therefore, if one’s moral actions are merely due to duty, these actions’ relationship to an individual’s motive can only be described as accidental. Bad and Good Acts Kant also extensively covered the issue of the distinction between good and bad acts, explaining the reasons some acts classified as bad. First, to Kant, bad is a consequence of an error in reasoning. Of these reasoning or logical errors, contradiction is regarded as the worst. For instance, a rational being would be contradicting own self by expecting others to have good will and act morally while he/she remains exempted from these laws. Kant refers to this kind of contradiction as special pleading. By willing to do bad things, rational beings would be indulging in contradiction since it would imply that all other rational beings do right since it is only by these rights that the wrongs of the other being are recognized. As an illustration, for one’s lies to be recognized, others must tell the truth. In essence, the liar will be willing and committing a contradiction error of “Every rational human being should tell the truth, except me,” in the process hurting others since “…a lie always harms another: if not some particular man, still it harms mankind generally, for it vitiates the source of law itself.” (Kant, P. 3, Par. 1)2. This error is referred to as special pleading in which an individual wants laws to apply to other people but him/her. Kant thus feels that it is only a reasoning that is rational and disregards consequences that should drive good will and a rational individual ought to apply the CI in the evaluation of his/her actions. “...if duty is a concept that is to contain significance and real lawgiving for our actions, it can be expressed only in categorical imperatives and by no means in hypothetical ones…” (Kant, P. 34, Par. 2)3. In other words, people should only act according to that maxim, as the universal law of nature, and their actions and words should henceforth conform to this maxim. In general, Kant believes that a rational being with a good will never commits bad acts and disregards ulterior and inferior motives such as pleasure, happiness, or self-interest, which are always the reasons for special pleading. Thus, good willed people will not seek to make exceptions for themselves for selfish benefits and natural good. Consequently, Kant asserts that desires for pleasure, happiness, or self-interest impede perfect rationality. Good will and acts on the other hand are free of these ulterior and inferior motives and never fall into special pleading that seeks personal favors and benefits. Instead, the maxims used by good willed people are universal and do not have contradictions since there are no obstacles to the reasoning of people of good will who reason and act according to the CI and duty. Kant “tries to identify the maxims, or fundamental principles of action that we ought to adopt.” (Onora, P. 176, Par. 2)4. To this class of human beings, good will, morality, rationality and being human are the same. Conclusion Good will, duty and bad/good act are some of the philosophical subjects that Kant extensively worked on in his lifetime. According to Kant, good will/motives should be the drivers of peoples’ actions, behaviors and words. On the other hand, good actions done with ulterior and inferior self-interests, pleasure and happiness motives do not qualify as moral acts. Kant thus defines the right motive as doing the right thing and one’s duty while respecting the moral law. Rationality is thus defined as constantly having the right motive/good will. References Abbot, T. K. (2009) “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals.” Retrieved on October 12, 2012 from http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16prm/chapter1.html Kant, I. (1994) On a supposed right to lie from altruistic motives - in Ethics, Singer, Peter, 1994. Oxford University Press. Kant, I. (1998) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press. Onora, O. (1993) Blackwell companion to philosophy: A companion to ethics. Blackwell. Read More