Lack Of Good Will Analysis

Kant says that a lack of good will has nothing to do with outcomes because there is only an accidental connection between what we do and the outcomes that arise from what we do. To hold someone morally responsible for what is not under their control is to hold them responsible for luck, therefore it is unreasonable to hold someone responsible for what is not under their control. Kant believes that a good will is intrinsically good because its value is independent of its external relations, the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action. Good will is the criterion when deciding whether something is right or wrong because good will is the only thing that is good in itself …show more content…
Next, the maxim has to be generalized into a law of nature: Everyone always kills sick people when doing so allows them to do much more good for humanity, in order to increase human safety. This maxim needs to be considered in real life, that is, what the world would be like if this law of nature were added to existing laws of nature and things had a chance to reach equilibrium: In the real world, it will be common knowledge that people kill the sick whenever they think they can do much more good for humanity. If they choose their maxim to be to kill people, while everyone’s else’s maxim is not to kill, a contradiction is formed. We live in a world where we value human life no matter the stage, old or young, sick or healthy. We don’t just decide to kill sick people because there is a possibility that they could infect healthy people. If in this scenario the sick where killed, it would mean that someone would intentionally make the choice to kill, and because they are knowingly and willingly ending people’s lives the act cannot be moral. It does not really matter that they hoped they would save humanity, because our actions are not governed by the outcomes we hope will come about. Nobody can predict whether killing the sick people will eliminate the disease …show more content…
Kant says that people have a perfect duty to not lie because it can be avoided by simply not lying. For example, the theory can’t help us to resolve conflicts of duty i.e. telling the truth versus protecting your loved one. The problem with this argument is that we are able to lie without following the rule “It is okay to lie.” This rule can be changed to “It is okay to lie when doing so will save someone’s life.” This is the problem, if a perfect duty like this can be thwarted, then almost any maxim could be rephrased to universalized in a manner to permit anything without contradiction, making it moral. Maxims can be described in a way that reflects the circumstances of the situation, so the Kantian would say that it is not necessary to interpret the theory as prohibiting lying in all circumstances. Even the taking of human life could be justified under certain circumstances. If someone was walking through a dark parking lot in the middle of the night, and a stranger came up to them and tried to abduct them, it would be permissible to do anything necessary in order to escape safely, it would even be okay to kill the attacker. Although killing is deemed immoral by Kant because it is a moral law that all people should not kill, maxims can be formulated to create exceptions under certain circumstances, which can be positive: self-defense, or negative: infidelity. For example, what if