Philosophy is a discipline that studies how one ought to live, as well as study reality, nature, existence, etc. However, there are a number of philosophers who propose differing sets of morals and have different ideas of living life to its fullest (Singer v. Mill). Kant proposes that moral actions are defined by the motivation of an action, and later on explains that moral actions are duties through reason, rather than inclination. This essay will explain the validity of Kant’s argument by first explaining Kant’s view on duty, then analyse his view of duty as an object of good will, which pertains to motivations without the slightest selfishness, then argue for moral duties motivated by duty instead of inclination based on reason.
It is difficult …show more content…
Due to examples such as the 2003 War in Iraq by the US, it can be seen that not all motivations are pure. Kant then states a limitation that not all actions are performed completely out of good will, and only categorical imperatives, which are actions that are done just for the sake of being done, and therefore considered as a priori since it is a means and an end, are truly pure. This is agreeable, however, it must be noted that hypothetical imperatives can also have good will (i.e. lying in order to protect someone’s feelings), yet at the same time, categorical imperatives would be more reliable. He gives four examples of categorical imperatives. Adherence to the first principle, which says one should not kill himself, is a must in order for humans to remain in the world, in addition to the importance of life. However, some would use the issue of euthanasia, as an exception, where the patient consciously asks to end his life because the illness is too unbearable. To refute, Kant’s argument implies to kill one’s self due to unbearable pain would be a selfish reason, since the will of this is to stop one’s suffering instead of enduring recovery. The second duty, borrowing money with the intention of returning it, is also good since the action of borrowing money follows the good will of returning the money. The third duty regarding the cultivation of one’s talent is not as explicit as Kant’s other imperatives in terms of determining good will, however Hunter (2002) states that ‘to approach philosophy as a way of working on the self means to begin not with the experience it clarifies and subject it discovers, but with the acts of self-transformation it requires and the subjectivity it seeks to fashion’. This means that to change one’s self does not start with experiences, but
It is difficult …show more content…
Due to examples such as the 2003 War in Iraq by the US, it can be seen that not all motivations are pure. Kant then states a limitation that not all actions are performed completely out of good will, and only categorical imperatives, which are actions that are done just for the sake of being done, and therefore considered as a priori since it is a means and an end, are truly pure. This is agreeable, however, it must be noted that hypothetical imperatives can also have good will (i.e. lying in order to protect someone’s feelings), yet at the same time, categorical imperatives would be more reliable. He gives four examples of categorical imperatives. Adherence to the first principle, which says one should not kill himself, is a must in order for humans to remain in the world, in addition to the importance of life. However, some would use the issue of euthanasia, as an exception, where the patient consciously asks to end his life because the illness is too unbearable. To refute, Kant’s argument implies to kill one’s self due to unbearable pain would be a selfish reason, since the will of this is to stop one’s suffering instead of enduring recovery. The second duty, borrowing money with the intention of returning it, is also good since the action of borrowing money follows the good will of returning the money. The third duty regarding the cultivation of one’s talent is not as explicit as Kant’s other imperatives in terms of determining good will, however Hunter (2002) states that ‘to approach philosophy as a way of working on the self means to begin not with the experience it clarifies and subject it discovers, but with the acts of self-transformation it requires and the subjectivity it seeks to fashion’. This means that to change one’s self does not start with experiences, but