Question 1:
Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law; it is obligation regardless of inclination. I disagree that the point of these two examples is to show that duty is only present when a person lacks all inclination to do the right thing. Kant provides examples of times when duty is clearly the only motivating factor but that does not mean duty can only be the motivation in people who lack inclination. In this example, self-motivation and the possible joy caused by a given action had to be stripped away in to reveal the motivating factor of duty because it is difficult to determine why people do what they do without breaking things down. This example is not meant to be an accurate representation of life. The point of turning …show more content…
The focus here is the motivation, not the result. For example, when someone gives charity to a homeless man because they know it will positively impact him and they want to make someone else happy, which will by extension make them happy, they are acting selfishly, not morally. Being charitable is everyone’s duty but when it’s done for self-interested reasons it is not nearly as commendable as when someone does something simply because it’s the right thing to do. When people act out of duty, they are furthering the notion of a maxim, that one should only act in a way that they would want to become a universal …show more content…
Their own subjective motivation, which of course is not a true maxim because it would not work universally. Kant offers this as a test to see if it is okay to make a lying promise for the sake of getting paid in times of distress. Firstly, what would the maxim be if there was a general maxim here? To get paid by making promises, even ones that one doesn’t intend to keep. Secondly, does this maxim make sense? No, because if it were universalized it would take away the meaning of a man’s word and a promise would no longer exist because it would stop connoting intent to follow through. Kant, rightfully comes concludes that one should only do things that act on maxims that would still make sense if everyone did them. It contradictions the very idea of a loan if the person getting the loan does not intend to pay it back; if it doesn’t work universally then you don’t want it to be your
Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law; it is obligation regardless of inclination. I disagree that the point of these two examples is to show that duty is only present when a person lacks all inclination to do the right thing. Kant provides examples of times when duty is clearly the only motivating factor but that does not mean duty can only be the motivation in people who lack inclination. In this example, self-motivation and the possible joy caused by a given action had to be stripped away in to reveal the motivating factor of duty because it is difficult to determine why people do what they do without breaking things down. This example is not meant to be an accurate representation of life. The point of turning …show more content…
The focus here is the motivation, not the result. For example, when someone gives charity to a homeless man because they know it will positively impact him and they want to make someone else happy, which will by extension make them happy, they are acting selfishly, not morally. Being charitable is everyone’s duty but when it’s done for self-interested reasons it is not nearly as commendable as when someone does something simply because it’s the right thing to do. When people act out of duty, they are furthering the notion of a maxim, that one should only act in a way that they would want to become a universal …show more content…
Their own subjective motivation, which of course is not a true maxim because it would not work universally. Kant offers this as a test to see if it is okay to make a lying promise for the sake of getting paid in times of distress. Firstly, what would the maxim be if there was a general maxim here? To get paid by making promises, even ones that one doesn’t intend to keep. Secondly, does this maxim make sense? No, because if it were universalized it would take away the meaning of a man’s word and a promise would no longer exist because it would stop connoting intent to follow through. Kant, rightfully comes concludes that one should only do things that act on maxims that would still make sense if everyone did them. It contradictions the very idea of a loan if the person getting the loan does not intend to pay it back; if it doesn’t work universally then you don’t want it to be your