The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences. If good will is the only categorical imperative, and categorical imperatives are unconditionally good. Actions done out of good will are good …show more content…
In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the Groundwork. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 18(4), 635-662. doi:10.1080/09608788.2010.502349 Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f0eb1ba-edf5-4b35-a15a-37588479a493%40sessionmgr112&vid=10&hid=115
Nothing in the world – indeed even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good with qualification except good will (Kant 61).
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...
Believing a ‘good will’ was the only unqualifiedly good virtue, Kant said every other virtue could be used for an immoral purpose. Kant drew the line on whether actions were deemed acceptable in the categorical imperative, which states that an unconditional moral is binding in all circumstances and does not depend on a person’s inclination. To form more sense of this, a person could think “will everyone act as I propose to do?”, if not, then do not perform the act. Also, “is my action, not merely for my own purpose, but respects the goals of human beings?”, where the moral of the actions need to establish a law for a hypothetical kingdom.
...count the good of an activity. If the activity can be applied unanimously to all men, then the activity would clearly be deemed as good. I think Kant would compare the hypothetical and categorical imperatives to Aristotles theory that doing virtuous acts continually leads to the greatest good, eudaimonia.
Kant's argument that good will is the supreme purpose of man's existence based on observations of the influence that reason exerts on the will is inconsistent with what may be observed in nature. It presupposes an intentional cosmos wherein an organized being's purpose, and thus its standard of value, can be extracted from an examination of its constitution and faculties. While this presupposition is logically consistent with the rest of Kant's moral theory, it does not coincide with what we can actually observe in nature. The following essay will examine, one, the idea of an organized being, secondly, why Kant proposes it, then we will contrast this idea with what we observe, and finally, analyse the extent of the harm done to the overarching theory of morality presented in the Groundwork if this concept is impaired. According to Kant, "In the physical constitution of an organized being, that is, a being adapted suitably to the purposes of life, we assume it as a fundamental principle that no organ for any purpose will be found but what is also the fittest and best adapted for that purpose."
In Immanuel Kant’s work, “Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals” he discusses what is good will. He believes that a good will is in itself already good and acts in accordance with goodness. So the traits that are normally associated with a good will like intelligence and courage are not be valued as good but rather are only temperaments that can be used in both good and bad aspects. A good will is not brought on by actions or is it meant to provide some sort of reward at the end of completion, but rather it is brought on only when a will desires to be good. To be in possession of a good will is to not have expect a certain result that reveals itself after completing a duty, but rather it is the thought in accordance to the law where the good will flourishes.
Kant believes the value of actions cannot come from their consequences because we do not know whether the outcome will be bad or good. If we are doing an action for the good, it shouldn’t matter whether or not the end was good too. If you try to save a drowning kid, you might get there too late, but you still tried your best to do so. The motivation for the action is important to distinguish between the good and bad.
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.
We live in an imperfect world where things can inevitably go wrong although our actions meant well. Ethical actions should not be judged by a good outcome rather by a good will. Ethics are principles of right and wrong that guide a body of professionals on how to conduct their duties. In this paper good will is explained as an act of kindness towards oneself. This essay will explore the deontological moral theory by Kant in relation to utilitarianism by Mill.