Analysis Of Kant's Moral Reasoning
He states that “it is a duty to preserve one’s life” and that most people also have an inclination to do so. For Kant, those who preserve their life because of this inclination have no moral import or worth. If, on the other hand, one “preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty”, then their act of self-preservation has moral worth. Essentially, congruence between one’s desires and the moral law is a form of moral luck rather than the basis of a moral action. With this in mind, let us consider the following three cases to contextualize Kant’s ideas on morality:
Barry dislikes people of other races. If given his druthers he would not serve them at his restaurant. But, he believes that morality requires him to serve them. So, he serves everyone for that reason.
Larry really dislikes people of other races. If given his druthers he would not serve them at his restaurant. But, he believes that the civil law requires him to serve them and that he will be punished if he does not. So, he serves everyone for that reason.
Harry loves everyone. He serves people of all races in his restaurant because he enjoys having a restaurant where people of all types are …show more content…
It seems that to be moral in the Kantian sense, one must be going against their own desires. In the aforementioned case, this is the point of contention between Barry and Harry. In fact, in the Kantian sense, it would seem contradictory for one to gain satisfaction from being moral because then one would be pursuing morality for a desire rather than a sense of duty. In this way, it seems that Kantian morality is treated as a burden rather than an enjoyable endeavor. In the end, I think this gap leaves one question that goes unanswered by Kant’s approach: why should man behave in a moral