Asti Hastings
5 November 2017
Intro. To Ethics: Paper #2
The readings of Immanuel Kant in his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, can be compared to reading a book in a completely different language. The words just looked like odd shapes on the page that I simply could not figure out. Reading these chapters was one of the hardest things I have ever done in a classroom. It was a challenge to get through, but it was a challenge I wanted to take. I thought it was a huge victory when I was able to understand a simple sentence. After many YouTube videos, online slide shows, countless re-reading, and googling definitions left and right, I was finally able to start to see some of Kant’s concepts in chapter 1 and 2. After going over the …show more content…
For instance, if a store owner gives a costumer fair prices and treats them well because it is good for his/her business, that demonstrates common sense which is not good will. The store owner is acting out of self-interest and not whether or not they are hurting the customer. Another example would be if a store owner gives a customer a fair price and treats them well because they feel empathy for them and wants to give them the best quality in their products. In this situation, the store owner has inclinations to do the right thing and is not demonstrating good will because s/he is using his/her feelings. I believe that both of these store owners do not have good will because they are not willing and do not have the motivation to do the right things, just because it is the right thing. Both of the store owners are doing what they think is right for the outcome that will ultimately affect his/her self. However, the last store owner gives his/her customers the fair prices and treats them well because s/he feels like it is their duty. The last store owner is the one who is demonstrating good will because they do the right thing, because they simply want to do the right thing with no strings attached. Even though they are all performing the same act, they all have different motives. The first two store owners are acting from self-interest and inclinations, but the third is acting from duty alone. I agree with …show more content…
Kant has explained that duty is not about serving a person's own interest and it is not judged on consequences. For instance, you should help an older man cross the street because it is the right thing to do, not because it will make you feel like a better person. Kant goes on to say that the categorical imperative is moral because it does not focus on the selfish reward, but rather focuses on what the right thing to do is. I really understood this section of Kant because I act from these ideas. I will hold the door for someone simply because it is something I know I should do. I do not hold the door for someone so I get a ‘thank you’ in response so I will feel better about myself. I agree that if a person acts from duty alone, like stated in the categorical imperative, that that person demonstrates good
5 November 2017
Intro. To Ethics: Paper #2
The readings of Immanuel Kant in his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, can be compared to reading a book in a completely different language. The words just looked like odd shapes on the page that I simply could not figure out. Reading these chapters was one of the hardest things I have ever done in a classroom. It was a challenge to get through, but it was a challenge I wanted to take. I thought it was a huge victory when I was able to understand a simple sentence. After many YouTube videos, online slide shows, countless re-reading, and googling definitions left and right, I was finally able to start to see some of Kant’s concepts in chapter 1 and 2. After going over the …show more content…
For instance, if a store owner gives a costumer fair prices and treats them well because it is good for his/her business, that demonstrates common sense which is not good will. The store owner is acting out of self-interest and not whether or not they are hurting the customer. Another example would be if a store owner gives a customer a fair price and treats them well because they feel empathy for them and wants to give them the best quality in their products. In this situation, the store owner has inclinations to do the right thing and is not demonstrating good will because s/he is using his/her feelings. I believe that both of these store owners do not have good will because they are not willing and do not have the motivation to do the right things, just because it is the right thing. Both of the store owners are doing what they think is right for the outcome that will ultimately affect his/her self. However, the last store owner gives his/her customers the fair prices and treats them well because s/he feels like it is their duty. The last store owner is the one who is demonstrating good will because they do the right thing, because they simply want to do the right thing with no strings attached. Even though they are all performing the same act, they all have different motives. The first two store owners are acting from self-interest and inclinations, but the third is acting from duty alone. I agree with …show more content…
Kant has explained that duty is not about serving a person's own interest and it is not judged on consequences. For instance, you should help an older man cross the street because it is the right thing to do, not because it will make you feel like a better person. Kant goes on to say that the categorical imperative is moral because it does not focus on the selfish reward, but rather focuses on what the right thing to do is. I really understood this section of Kant because I act from these ideas. I will hold the door for someone simply because it is something I know I should do. I do not hold the door for someone so I get a ‘thank you’ in response so I will feel better about myself. I agree that if a person acts from duty alone, like stated in the categorical imperative, that that person demonstrates good