Metaphysics Of Morals: Immanuel Kant, Duty And Good Will

Superior Essays
“Nothing can be conceived in the world, or even out of it which can be called good without qualification, except a good will”.(261) In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant defines the good will (duty/ universal law)as a rational basis for morality that would be correct for all people at all times and in all circumstances.(260) Kant saw that the good will contrasted with good fortune or what many people believed to be happiness/good character (ex Aristotle’s virtues). He asserted that these pleasures had a high risk to become” extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them...is not good." (loyne.edu) Kant believed that morality was matter of reason and that the moral worth of person depended on their intentions not the “contingencies of fate”(261) Through the use practical …show more content…
In his pursuit he believed that logic, a priori, held the key to the good will. He unlike many philosophers worked to become worthy of happiness not just achieve it. It was interesting to see how he focuses on the concept of duty/ motives and how that did not necessarily have to do with happiness at all. Which I can see as true the right thing does not always align with our pleasures. In a way he worked to develop a way that most people could live in peace- if they believed/followed the mental and physical conditions(the good society) of the categorical imperative. In his work the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moral, he touches on the topics of a good state and what it really means to be autonomous. I view this theory as a very modern way of thinking and more realistic than the ideas of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. He develops his concept through the idea of science and reasoning and builds off of the great thinker Hume. In all Immanuel Kant creates an ethical code that many of us can relate to and in many ways surpasses the brilliant minds that came before

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Kant starts right off by talking about the only thing that can be considered good without limitations is that of a good will. He describes how the things that bring forth happiness can also cause arrogance unless a good will is present (4:393). He talks about how moderation in affects and passions, as well as self-control and calm reflection are not only good for all purposes, but they even effect the inner worth of a person. Kant believes without the basic principles of good will they can become evil (4:394). He tells us how a good will is good do only its volition, meaning it itself is good.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Since every person has different virtues and opinions, they can act in any way they choose. We are free to act in way’s that are moral or immoral because according to this theory, our intentions are more meaningful than the outcome. Kant explains that, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes-because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing along- that is good in itself (pg. 110).” If we make the conscience effort to do good, we are inherently good. If our objectives are to cause harm, we are inherently bad.…

    • 1510 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The second formulation is the ‘Principle of Ends not Means’, it works on the basis that all people are equal and therefore it is wrong to exploit others or use them for personal benefits. This formulation shows how Kant had a respect for the value of humans, which is obviously important for an ethical theory; Kant believed that all people were an end in themselves. It also displays the importance of intention. You shouldn’t carry out an act that you know will treat someone as just a means, even if it benefits a greater good (contrast to utilitarianism). Kant thought that through helping others gain happiness (not treating them as just means) we also developed our own moral perfection- this also links in with Kant’s desire for a better society overall.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believed every human had a sense of worth, and therefore had a privilege to equal rights. Through Kant’s theory, humans have the ability to choose what makes them happy, as long as it is chosen with reason. Some cons of Kant’s theory are that he believes human’s “good will” is always intrinsically good. This is not realistic since all people have different views and opinions. This being said, we may perform different actions based upon what we believe is our “good will”.…

    • 1637 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Someone who supports Kantianism would argue that they are right and say that a person is good because they always do what is right. However, that does not tell the whole story. By no means am I arguing that doing what is right or fulfilling your moral duty doesn’t make a person good, but what makes a person more good is having a good character. A genuinely good person does not do good things just solely because they are required to by law or should do it. They do good things because it is in their nature and they value these…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    • 3 Works Cited
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    At first glance, moral good humans appear to appeal to the well thought out philosophical view; the truth of moral judgments is relative to the innate sense of whether a human is morally good or morally bad at birth. The basic definition of morally good and bad is that all moral points of view are equal, no one has morals that are any righter or wrong than any other person in this world. As you look closer at the points people use to justify their claims, you can plainly see that there are, more often than not, viable objections that can be made against any of the arguments for morally good, bad, and neutral. Humans born morally good suggest that a baby is born with an innate sense of morality. For example, researchers at Yale University begin…

    • 1471 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant and Aristotle are both philosophers who have different views about the highest human good and morality. Kant believes the only thing perfectly good is the good will (Haber 1993, 61). It is independent of other influences and acts in accordance with duty. The good will is intrinsically good, good without qualification. However, that is not to say everything a human does is done with good will, hence why it is based off duty.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Both utilitarianism and democracy share similar ideals such as equality, cooperation, unity, and freedom. While utilitarianism seemingly implies that people can do what they want as long as their actions increase happiness, from higher pleasures, for the greatest amount of people and do not violate the rights of others based on the ideals, this is not true. Utilitarianism does not deal in absolutes. As Mill states if society needs to deny a certain right to avoid unhappiness, then they can. The government has the authority to deny rights if it is for the protection of happiness for the greatest amount of people.…

    • 1643 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It becomes very obvious as the reader reads through the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that selfishness and dutifulness are enormous components of Kant’s view on ethics. Kant’s view remains the same throughout all parts of his Groundwork… that being selfish is not considered moral and that doing things from a dutiful mindset can make all of the difference in a moral action. Just as a dutiful mindset can turn bad quickly so can happiness. As mentioned earlier, people would like to think that they do things for others to make themselves happy but more times than not they do for themselves to be happy. Happiness really all depends on how you let yourself go about it.…

    • 1684 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Why should he solely be accountable for the well-being of others? Mill explains that there is a natural duty of humans to help each other and the fear of displeasing God, but there is still necessarily no clear evidence that we must strive for aggregate happiness to achieve those goals. Even so, if George is to calculate each alternative, as a proper utilitarian, and weigh the net happiness of each action then he has the ability to place the value of his own happiness above other’s. Therefore, if George values his moral integrity and happiness above that of his family and the supposed passionate chemist, he has the complete right to not accept the job and still please the utilitarian…

    • 1414 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays

Related Topics