In Immanuel Kant’s, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, the morality of action is questioned, defined, and explained. To do so, Kant brings up an example of several people, two of which either, “preserve their lives”, or, “act charitably” out of pure, “natural inclination” (Kant). The other two are performing the same actions, but, in stark contrast to the other two individuals, are acting because of a, “motive of duty”, or maxim (Kant). Kant explains that those who acted out of duty are only deserving of moral status for their actions, and those who acted out of impulse do not. After much deliberation, I have agreed with Kant’s perspective of what comprises a moral action. In support of my agreeing with Kant, I will provide his reasoning
…show more content…
Kant states that this is selfish because the shopkeeper deviated from “principles of honesty”, and acted from a “natural inclination” to retain a clientele in his shop, and refused to obey the call of duty to act in an unbiased manner, thus not doing so morally.
So, as stated previously, Kant’s analogy of two shopkeepers defines why actions stemming from an actual moral duty are the only ones deserving of “moral worth”. The first shopkeeper, who acted per a maxim, or duty, maintained honesty, and sold his goods at a “flat rate”, and did not adjust prices to keep customers, unlike the shopkeeper who acted impulsively. This situation and analogy, as described by Kant, is not inclusive of any outcome, but rather the motives of the decision-makers. It is here that Kant’s rationale for making choices, as well as morality, can be …show more content…
For example, one could assert that a solider fighting in war, who believes that his/her moral duty is to his/her respective country, could meet a paradox when given orders to commit genocide. This would be a conflicting sense of morality, insofar that the soldier still believes that he/she still has a moral duty to obey the military and political leaders of his/her country. So, here, a critical issue can be seen, as inherently, the soldier has a moral duty not to kill another human being, and that acting upon this moral duty of disobeying orders would be the only moral choice. Nonetheless, this choice could not be a blindingly apparent one, as mitigating circumstances would interfere with rational thought of the
Kant states that this is selfish because the shopkeeper deviated from “principles of honesty”, and acted from a “natural inclination” to retain a clientele in his shop, and refused to obey the call of duty to act in an unbiased manner, thus not doing so morally.
So, as stated previously, Kant’s analogy of two shopkeepers defines why actions stemming from an actual moral duty are the only ones deserving of “moral worth”. The first shopkeeper, who acted per a maxim, or duty, maintained honesty, and sold his goods at a “flat rate”, and did not adjust prices to keep customers, unlike the shopkeeper who acted impulsively. This situation and analogy, as described by Kant, is not inclusive of any outcome, but rather the motives of the decision-makers. It is here that Kant’s rationale for making choices, as well as morality, can be …show more content…
For example, one could assert that a solider fighting in war, who believes that his/her moral duty is to his/her respective country, could meet a paradox when given orders to commit genocide. This would be a conflicting sense of morality, insofar that the soldier still believes that he/she still has a moral duty to obey the military and political leaders of his/her country. So, here, a critical issue can be seen, as inherently, the soldier has a moral duty not to kill another human being, and that acting upon this moral duty of disobeying orders would be the only moral choice. Nonetheless, this choice could not be a blindingly apparent one, as mitigating circumstances would interfere with rational thought of the