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.
To judge one’s moral worth for his or her actions is a very important task. In the play, Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen, the main character, Dr. Stockmann performs in what many would consider a good, but moral worth is not determined by someone making a 10 second analysis of the actions and determining it. In order to determine moral worth, one can use Immanuel Kant’s book, Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals. Within this book, Kant describes how one’s actions can be determined for the purpose of moral worth. Kant goes into detail and uses the cognitive imperative and other ways to determine moral worth.
Judith Lichtenberg successfully conveys her moral theory with many questions regarding her topics of abstractness, the sense of futility and ineffectiveness, overestimating our generosity, distance, the relativity of well-being, the power of shame, and the drops in the bucket. Using these practical and philosophical ideas she explains why we as a people should search to discover the obstacles that are preventing us from giving more, rather than the finding our charitable obligations and the amounts we should be giving. She leads us to the ideal of motivation and tells us to pay less attention to obligation, because without X being moved to do an act, does it really matter what the act was if X never induces the action?
Another motive for action is when something is done in accordance to duty, and actually wants to do it – this is also called immediate inclination. An example of this principle would be a man who is happily married. However, at the office, there is an attractive new intern that constantly hits on him. He does find the intern to be physically attractive but does not actually desire to be with her. He reflects that he could indeed have an affair with this intern if he wanted to but he wont in a million years because he is extremely happy with his wife. He wouldn’t risk that relationship for a chance at a fling. According to Kant, this would not have moral worth because it comes from immediate inclination, not from the motive of duty.
The first proposition helps us distinguish which actions have moral worth by differentiating acts that are motivated because of duty and acts that are not. Kant shows the differences using a few examples, the first is a salesman who does not overcharge a customer even if he knows they are inexperienced, but the salesman’s reasoning behind this is that he doesn’t want to tarnish his reputation if he were to get caught overcharging an inexperienced customer. Kant says this is not because of morals, because the salesman was not motivated by duty to treat the customer fairly.
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
...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.
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.
Kant would describe a good will as being good if there is ‘good’ in itself (Kant 8). Furthermore, Kant states that it is not good just because of its end result or because of what it wants to result in (Kant 8). To me, this makes sense. For example, if a person is to help someone walk across the street without asking for anything in return, it could be considered a good will. I believe this because there is ‘good’ in the act, as someone is helping another person without asking for anything in return. Kant also defined his definition of the idea of duty in which he states, “Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for law” (Kant 13). In other words, in order to follow a person’s duty, they must act in accordance to the laws given to them. For example, if someone wants to do good in the world, they should not commit the crime of murder as it would not be acting in accordance to the law and therefore would not be considered a ‘good’ action. Kant specifically believes that this general idea of the law is only within people who are considered to be rational (Kant 14). He says this because he believes that only rational being have respect towards the law and are therefore the only ones who can understand it and have a general idea within them (Kant 14). I can see where this makes sense in some ways, but I can find an objection with it as well. My objection is the fact that I believe that
Overall, I think that Kant’s first proposition to morality is a good one, it makes sense that our actions should have moral worth because we do them because they are in accordance to duty and we feel we have a duty to even if they go against our desires. I believe the sympathetic person’s actions do not have a moral worth since they do kind things from the natural qualities that they possess of kindness and compassion. People should be encouraged to help their fellow citizens and have such qualities, but doing so does not have moral worth unless it is from the motive of duty, if not it is just in accordance with duty.
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 only good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself.
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).
This is an act based on maximizing one’s own utility, even if it is merely in his own mind. To those for whom morality and helping the greater good is important, altruistic acts exist even it is within the category of selfish acts. Thus, Hobbes’ theory concerning actions based solely on self-serving motivations is not truly complete.
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
...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.