In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moral, Kant discusses the term of good will and further develops the nature of it. In the book, he gives several examples to illuminate human nature of good willing through the concept of duty, which is that duty is an action which we are force to perform out of respect for moral law. And there are three of the examples that clearly explain the terms. In the first example, the author states that a dealer shouldn’t overcharge an inexperienced purchaser in accordance with duty. There is a prudent dealer, who we named Peter, does not overcharge an fresh purchaser but sell goods at a fixed price for everyone, so that even a child or a new customer may purchase from him. The prudent shopkeeper fairly served
…show more content…
There are two criteria of this judgment, one of them is judging correctly. In the first example of Peter, Peter treat all customers fairly is right, but it is not correct to have the reason of making more money because this motivation is not reliable. In addition, the second criterion is to make judgment basis of evidence. Based on this criterion, neither self-interest nor inclination is good evidence as they are both involves in personal feelings or motivations. Unlike those, in the third example, Saul performs good action from duty, and there is a good evidence in this case that it is reason which tells Saul to have the right action. Compares to Peter and Paul, Saul employ a good will and perform good action as the reason said to do so. The judgment that so acting is good as well, Saul was doing the right thing with a right reason, and acting from duty is a reliable process to prove the judgment. On the other hand, it’s not necessary to be a consequence that people with good will should emotionally speak, indifferent or hostile to her action. What’s wrong is that, for example, in order to care your friends, you can do things from self-interest or from inclination, but most importantly, you should be motivated by duty, and this can show the moral
There are two criteria of this judgment, one of them is judging correctly. In the first example of Peter, Peter treat all customers fairly is right, but it is not correct to have the reason of making more money because this motivation is not reliable. In addition, the second criterion is to make judgment basis of evidence. Based on this criterion, neither self-interest nor inclination is good evidence as they are both involves in personal feelings or motivations. Unlike those, in the third example, Saul performs good action from duty, and there is a good evidence in this case that it is reason which tells Saul to have the right action. Compares to Peter and Paul, Saul employ a good will and perform good action as the reason said to do so. The judgment that so acting is good as well, Saul was doing the right thing with a right reason, and acting from duty is a reliable process to prove the judgment. On the other hand, it’s not necessary to be a consequence that people with good will should emotionally speak, indifferent or hostile to her action. What’s wrong is that, for example, in order to care your friends, you can do things from self-interest or from inclination, but most importantly, you should be motivated by duty, and this can show the moral