In Kant’s Section I of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he explains what is a good will. On Kant’s view, nothing can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will. Additionally, Kant believes a good will is the indispensable condition of happiness. (Sec I. 393). Kant uses three examples to demonstrate the nature of good willing. Kant introduces three examples about three men in three different scenarios to demonstrate what it is to act according to duty. On Kant’s view, a good will is not enough to decide that an action is good in itself. (Sec I. 396). People must apply reason to the will because its true function is to produce a will which is not merely good as a means to some further end but is good in itself. (Sec
…show more content…
(Sec I. 398) Paul finds an inner pleasure in spreading joy to other people and can celebrate in the satisfaction of others as his own work. (Sec I. 398). Kant maintains that in Paul’s case his actions are dutiful and amiable, nevertheless, they have no true moral value. (Sec I. 398) Kant believes that Paul’s actions are similar to actions that arise from other inclinations. (Sec I. 398) For example, the inclination for honor. On Kant’s view, if the action is directed to what is, in fact, beneficial and accords with duty and thus is honorable, deserves praise and encouragement, but not admiration. (Sec I. 398). Because its maxim lacks the moral content of an action done not from inclination but from duty. (Sec I. …show more content…
Saul is the only merchant that is not performing actions based on inclinations. Additionally, Saul’s actions are only performed from duty. Therefore, because Saul did not perform his actions based on any inclinations (he lacks all inclinations), rather he performed them from duty is what makes Saul’s actions good willing. Furthermore, Saul’s actions have genuine moral worth. (Sec I. 398). Kant uses the example as an extreme to demonstrate that actions must be done from duty and not from inclinations. However, Kant believes that people can have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action. Conversely, people can never have respect for such an object, just because it is an effect and is not an activity of the will. (Sec I. 400). On Kant’s view, an object of respect (an action) can only be connected with the will solely as ground and never as an effect. (Sec I.
(Sec I. 398) Paul finds an inner pleasure in spreading joy to other people and can celebrate in the satisfaction of others as his own work. (Sec I. 398). Kant maintains that in Paul’s case his actions are dutiful and amiable, nevertheless, they have no true moral value. (Sec I. 398) Kant believes that Paul’s actions are similar to actions that arise from other inclinations. (Sec I. 398) For example, the inclination for honor. On Kant’s view, if the action is directed to what is, in fact, beneficial and accords with duty and thus is honorable, deserves praise and encouragement, but not admiration. (Sec I. 398). Because its maxim lacks the moral content of an action done not from inclination but from duty. (Sec I. …show more content…
Saul is the only merchant that is not performing actions based on inclinations. Additionally, Saul’s actions are only performed from duty. Therefore, because Saul did not perform his actions based on any inclinations (he lacks all inclinations), rather he performed them from duty is what makes Saul’s actions good willing. Furthermore, Saul’s actions have genuine moral worth. (Sec I. 398). Kant uses the example as an extreme to demonstrate that actions must be done from duty and not from inclinations. However, Kant believes that people can have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action. Conversely, people can never have respect for such an object, just because it is an effect and is not an activity of the will. (Sec I. 400). On Kant’s view, an object of respect (an action) can only be connected with the will solely as ground and never as an effect. (Sec I.