In Emanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he provides his readers with the definition of free will. Moreover, from his definition of free will, Kant will attempt to prove that free will is the equivalence of following the set of moral laws that you would want everyone else to pursue. In this paper, we will focus on Kant’s concept of a free will, and the inferences he makes in order to prove his conclusion that free will is equivalent to following moral laws as long as the moral laws don’t violate the categorical imperative. In addition, after explaining Kant’s argument, we will try to argue against Kant’s concept of free will. In the third section of Kant’s Groundwork, he inquires his readers by asking the following question,”
…show more content…
His definition of free will disregards our ability to choose our sense of style, our likes and dislikes, etc. Free will isn’t just the ability to act and pursue a moral law because a free will in the context of our everyday setting isn’t limited to morality, it’s our freedom to choose to be, to do, and anything we want without any constraints. Free will according to Kant functions in such a way that forces us to follow moral laws because if it violates the categorical imperative it would contradict our actions. However, if we change the Kant’s restricted definition of free will, then his first premise wouldn’t establish the conclusion. Let’s consider the following example, we have two rational beings we will call them X and Y. Both X and Y live in the same area, and they both attended the same schools, and they both share the same standard of living, etc, but one of them was hit by a car and died. Even though, they both shared similar lifestyles, X died, and he didn’t act against any moral laws; in fact he didn’t choose to get hit by a car even if he chose to cross the street when it was his turn to cross the street. Moreover, under Kant’s definition of free will X’s decision of crossing the street at a specific time isn’t an example of exercising our free will because there isn’t a moral issue at hand. In this example, we see the way free will
His definition of free will disregards our ability to choose our sense of style, our likes and dislikes, etc. Free will isn’t just the ability to act and pursue a moral law because a free will in the context of our everyday setting isn’t limited to morality, it’s our freedom to choose to be, to do, and anything we want without any constraints. Free will according to Kant functions in such a way that forces us to follow moral laws because if it violates the categorical imperative it would contradict our actions. However, if we change the Kant’s restricted definition of free will, then his first premise wouldn’t establish the conclusion. Let’s consider the following example, we have two rational beings we will call them X and Y. Both X and Y live in the same area, and they both attended the same schools, and they both share the same standard of living, etc, but one of them was hit by a car and died. Even though, they both shared similar lifestyles, X died, and he didn’t act against any moral laws; in fact he didn’t choose to get hit by a car even if he chose to cross the street when it was his turn to cross the street. Moreover, under Kant’s definition of free will X’s decision of crossing the street at a specific time isn’t an example of exercising our free will because there isn’t a moral issue at hand. In this example, we see the way free will