Immanuel Kant's Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Mo

According to Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, the only thing that is good in itself is the good will. Our intentions to perform certain behaviours or engage in courses of action are guided by the good will, which itself, under the Kantian view, must adhere to a set of laws. Such laws would involve moral principles or maxims that apply to all rational beings, based on reason rather than circumstance, and Kant arrives at the Categorical Imperative as this universal law. This idea has a variety of formulations, the first and foremost being: “act only in such a way that you would want the maxim or motivating principle of your action to become a universal law”. Kant’s conclusion has had profound impacts on the study of morality,

His logical progression of premises takes the most ideal stance on each, describing the qualities of not only the good will that motivates behaviour, but perhaps the best will. Kant’s arguments make several assumptions, however, that warrant the application of skepticism. Firstly, he purports that actions can be truly moral – devoid of selfish desire or inclination. Surely any action human beings can undertake can be attributed to some motive or interest that taints its moral purity. And yet, our experiences, regardless of how immoral they may appear, should not discourage the application of reason and moral principles in the future; morality can be strived towards. Moreover, this line of thought counters criticism that, in practice, moral beliefs come from institutions rather than reason. The lay person does not commit theft because they do not want to be punished by a society or system that deems this action immoral. But Kant prescribes the Categorical Imperative as a higher form of morality, perhaps not to be assumed by the masses, but enacted when the rule is learned. Moreover, it would be similarly beneficial if the institutions enforcing laws also considered Kant’s ethical framework. Third, Kant draws distinction between the morality of the motive as opposed to the outcome. Most of the time, I perceive what drives someone to be charitable as less

It seemingly lacks pragmatism or easy applicability in everyday life, appealing to unattainable ideals. These thoughts were shared by G.W.F. Hegel in his essay, Natural Law, arguing that the Categorical Imperative reduces morality to “empty formalism”, converting it into mere rhetoric promoting duty for duty’s sake. That is, Kant’s law does not provide any specific guidelines or moral rules that can be easily followed, rather depending on the detection of a contradiction to guide behaviour. For example, in boldly suggesting a rule that “there should be no private property”, there is no inherent contradiction. Other than cultural and societal norms, there is nothing to support claims that we should own property or that ownership is necessary. But if this became rule, theft would be thus permissible, as the very idea of theft would not exist, and there would thus be no contradiction for people to take things freely for they would be owned by nobody. By extending this line of reasoning, that many rules taken for granted have no contradictory basis if made permissible, wrong and immoral acts can be easily justified. Kant’s apparent oversimplification of morality to what many would consider an iteration of The Golden Rule may be impractical and