How Kant Uses the Concept of Duty to Bring Out Their Relevant Similarities and Differences - Book Report/Review Example

Immanuel Kant, Ethical Philosophy The examples Kant discusses and how he uses the concept of duty to bring out their relevant similarities and differences The examples Kant presents in the first section are in four different parts; the good will, the teleological argument, the propositions regarding duty and the categorical imperative. Kant has an assertion that only the good will is good. He thinks all the good qualify with the only exception being the good will. Kant says that the “goods” are only “good” if they presuppose or get their goodness from something else. Let us take an example of wealth; it can only be good if the human beings use it to fulfill their desires. However, wealth can be disastrous for humans if a corrupt person is behind it. Another example is how we always want to have intelligence and assume it is good, but humans cannot take the knowledge of an evil person to be good. A good will is not just good because of the things it accomplishes rather it is because it is good in itself. “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because its volition, that is. It is good in itself” (Chapter 4, Section 1, Paragraph 394). A teleological argument may be used to illustrate the actual vocation of reason should be to give a will that is good. “True vocation of reason must be to produce a will that is good” (Chapter 4, Section 1, Paragraph 396). A case for the existence of God, Kant believes that the whole universe or some part of the world serves as great telos or purpose. Nature’s creatures’ capacity to reason would not serve a purpose of achieving happiness if they had a purpose. It is provided by natural inclination given to them. The ability to reason should be able to produce another goal through inclination that is to produce a good will. There is a will guided by a desire and a will guided by reason. The will that is guided by reason is the will of duty. A man engages in a good deed; he gets pleasure from what is good, and does it for that reason. Feelings judge what is good. Kant argues that one sees common sense in a person from the way they act regardless of the obligation. There is a case where a person’s actions coincide with the functions, but do not get motivation from the obligation and a person being motivated by duty and acting on it. An example is that of a shopkeeper that decides not to overcharge a customer because they do not know the price of a commodity to preserve his reputation. A merchant always gives correct change; he does it out of an aversion to risk. The above example clearly sees it the action is not motivated by duty, and thus his actions have no moral worth according to Kant. Another example that contrasts the shopkeeper is that of a person faced “adversity and hopeless grief” (Chapter 4, Section 1, Paragraph 398). The person chooses not to end his/her life as a duty. Kant sees this action have moral worth. The only way our actions have moral worth according to Kant is when they are motivated by duty. Many scholars disagree with Kant on his notion of duty and moral value. One of the scholars believes an act has moral value if it respects the law far from the case of a person preserving his life because it is his duty. Kant says an action has moral worth not because of the purpose to attain, but on an action in its principle of volition. Kant’s third proposition is that duty is a necessary measure from respecting the law. All of our actions, therefore, should follow the law, whether from inclination or morality. “An action from duty has its moral worth not for the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon, and therefore does not depend upon the realization of the object of the action but merely upon the principle of volition in accordance with which the action is done without regard to any object of the faculty of desire” (4:400). A man does a good deed; he has no delight but only for duty. According to Kant, what is it to will? Kant defines a will like the action of when someone acts according to the conception of the law. He says that when we act, it is often beyond our control whether we achieve what we want or not. The morality of what we do does not depend upon the outcome of the actions. Having a will, is, however, what we have control over and choosing to act according to one or the other law. If two people perform the same action according to the same concept of a law, but events beyond one of the people is beyond their control, they should still be praised. “Duty is a necessity of action from respect for the law” (Chapter 4, Section 1, Paragraph 400). How does this conception of willing support Kant’s conclusion that only one of the examples represents good willing? An example of one who wants to be in the Frisbee nationals, the person follows the laws regarding being in the competition. The rules include practicing the backhand pass. The law only applies to one who wants to be in the Frisbee nationals and no one else. The law from the example is determined by the will to participate and act on a particular thing. He insists laws should represent the good will. The moral worth of an action should be from acting from duty. Is it a consequence of Kant’s account that a person of good will must be, emotionally speaking, indifferent or even hostile to her action? Kant does not specify whether a person should prefer the combination of having a good will and ending up with bad consequences. One should also not expect an evil person with bad will to have bad results or good results. The results of our actions can go either way. They can either be good results from the good will or bad results. Regardless, if a person performed an act of a good will, they are worthy of praise irrespective of the outcome. Kant believes the goodness from a good will does not come from all the combinations. The virtue remains untarnished by any combination. References Kant, I. (1995). Ethical Philosophy. Indiana: Hackett Publishing. Print Read More