Immanuel Kant On What Makes A Moral Saint

I don’t know whether there are any moral Saints. But if there are, I am sad that neither I nor those about whom I care most are among them. By moral saint I mean a person who tries their best to be morally good as possible, yet still takes into account the idea of promoting utility, also follows his moral duty, a limited categorical imperative and can somehow balance all of them equally. I believe Susan Wolf, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant were all on to something with their ideas of morality, yet their ideas independently do not create a moral saint. It is only when one takes ideas from each and puts them together they get a moral saint that would be practical and worthy of being a friend. First off I would like to take a look at Susan …show more content…
Kant begins with looking at the concept of ‘good in itself;’ he shows only good will can be good without qualification (Kant, 1785, 18). Kant is not saying there are not other good things out there, he is just saying all other goods are qualified and only instrumentally good. Kant is saying the only thing that can be completely good is ‘good will’ (20). To act out of ‘good will’ means to act out of a sense of ‘moral obligations’ or ‘duty,’ one shouldn’t be acting for what the action produces, but ‘preforming them because they are impelled thereto by some other inclination (22). So, ‘an action is done from duty’, if it derives its moral worth not from the right or wrong of action, ‘but from the maxim by which it is determined’ (24). Therefore, right or wrong depends solely on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire. This identifies the individual as the author of moral law. Because of this, Kant believes we should have to ask ourselves two questions1 before we can act morally: Can I will that everyone would act the same in this situation? And Does my action respect others or am I merely using them for my own purposes? These two questions can help one determine if their individual moral law stands up universally. This idea became …show more content…
They would be a loving saint as they would try their best to be morally good while caring for their own well-being and the well-being of others. They would be able to eat without worrying about the categorical imperative and staving the world. They would be a normal saint as they are able to pursue the arts and find reasonable amounts of pleasure. They would be a rational saint because they are constantly living by their moral duties just on a less universal scale. It is reasonable to ask oneself if a majority of people in this situation find this morally okay to do? If so, it is okay to do so. This limits the outliers and allows for one to make a rational decision faster and on a more local scale. The moral saint we speak of would be well balanced in saintly-hood, as they must balance equally all of the above propositions, and therefore would be promoting good in many different ways compare to their predecessors. Any of these propositions alone could lead to trouble, but when put together it works smoothly. Each proposition fits because the others act as “checks and balances” of the other rules. As long as all the propositions are followed, one would have a perfect moral saint. This moral saint would be a friend who can lie when needed because a majority of people wouldn’t tell a murderer where you are. Your friend will find pleasure in arts or sports and will be able to not be so drab. Your friend will be able to be more rational when