The one thing in the world that is considered good without conditions is good will itself. This is due to the fact that many qualities are considered good and yet those same traits can turn malicious and harmful. For example, intelligence can be seen as a positive trait with good intentions, however if you use that intelligence for the wrong reasons, examples being the plethora of dictators in history including Stalin, Hitler etc, then that “good” quality becomes a quality with bad intentions. Good will is intrinsically good even if the results brought about are not as intended because “good will is good for how it wills” (Kant, Page 5). There are two purposes to be considered, one being the unconditional purpose of producing a good will and …show more content…
Kant states that in his writing that a man who has been cold hearted and had difficultly feeling for others, still benefits others in his distress, but their need does not affect him as he is preoccupied with his own problems. However, he reflects on this and finds it inside him to act charitably purely from duty, without feeling want or liking so to behave this way. He was seen as deprived by human nature from being warm hearted ,however he himself found it in himself a source from which to give himself a far higher worth then if he had been given the warm hearted temperament naturally. It was an act that needed will power in order to act accordingly and it was not for any outside goal. “He is a beneficent not from preference but from duty” (Kant, Page 9). This relates to a person who barely resists the temptation to shoplift through pure “willpower” deserving more moral credit than a person that never even tempted to shoplift. In comparison to the previous example it is made clear those whose natural temperament is not given such as natural temperament of warm heartedness or a natural temperament to not steal, an effort needs to be made to overcome and develop that temperament. Kant portrayed the one man who had to develop a sense of charity to help others simply from a sense of duty not for a reward, just as this person had to overcome the sensation to shoplift for the sense of duty not for an outside obligation. The person who never had the temptation to shoplift does not deserve more moral credit according to Kant because this is done out of an outside obligation usually being honor. An act is formally described as having moral worth according to Kant if it is in accordance with the moral law, if it is not performed from inclination whether if that inclination is selfish or for others, and it is performed from respect for the moral law. Not shoplifting at a store using
In Rushworth Kidder’s book “How Good People Make Tough Choices,” Kidder provides a series of different methods, codes and examples of what being an ethical journalist could mean. He gives examples of different situations where a person’s ethics are tested and what would be a good way to deal with these situations. He starts by explaining the difference between things that are right-versus-right dilemmas, and those that are right-versus-wrong dilemmas.
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the Groundwork. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 18(4), 635-662. doi:10.1080/09608788.2010.502349 Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f0eb1ba-edf5-4b35-a15a-37588479a493%40sessionmgr112&vid=10&hid=115
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
Kant says that good will is the only thing that is good. Human’s will, functioning well, is the only thing worth moral approval. It doesn’t matter if the person is smart or courageous if the person has a bad will. If someone is doing something for the wrong reason, but they still have courage doing it, it’s still not moral. The point of reason isn’t happiness, which is opposite from what Aristotle says. Some actions might seem like duties, but are just conformities with duty and because of that have no moral worth. An example we used in class would be the case of the misanthropic philanthropist who hates airports, but goes and helps the refugees because it’s the right thing to do. This shows that happiness doesn’t always come with moral
Nothing in the world – indeed even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good with qualification except good will (Kant 61).
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
The definition of “good” is not as black-and-white as approval and disapproval according to Aquinas. He defines “good” as more “enticing” or “desirable”. The most universal type of goodness is the idea that everything is good as everything is being.
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
However, what about when one commits a good act, only to have the act result in something evil? If one commits a good act that has an evil result is that act evil? For example, there were a multitude of charity schemes, namely phishing scams, which occurred after hurricane Katrina. If one were to have donated money to one of these scams, thinking they were helping the hurricane victims, they would have been committing a good act. However, in reality they were being cheated out of their money, which would have likely then been put to an evil use. This example illustrates that a good act that results in evil is in itself not evil. The individual still committed a good act since it was inspired by their love for
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself. People naturally pursue the good things in life and avoid the bad. Kant argues that these good things are either means to a further end or good ends in and of themselves.
When Kant says, "For when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principles, which are not seen," in page 19, he is suggesting that a person's true motives behind the action are more important in determining if the action holds true moral value. As Jonathan Bennett, a British philosopher of language and metaphysics who translated Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, says, when moral worth is in question it is not a matter of visible actions but of their invisible inner principles (Bennett, 19). Kant explains that a human being might have inclinations, reasons for doing something, beyond moral reasons. Inclinations are motives (desires, interests, incentives, fears, or impulses) that one may possess, but will sometimes seem hidden when performing an action. If there lies a motive behind carrying out an action, aside for the sake of duty alone, then it can be considered to be i...
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.