Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysics Of Morals Summary

Journal 3 - Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals

In Kant’s text, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, he explains the law of self-governing will as well as the fact that moral principles are based on the concept of reason. Kant believes that the most important purpose of doing something for an individual is to attain happiness and that reason doesn't appear as the best motivator to do things. Thus, individuals who have a cultivated ability to use reason are often less happy and more envious of others. However, he notes that it is important to realize that reason develops better intentions than happiness. This is because reason and logic function to develop a will that is truly righteous and good in itself, as

This is why when trying to attain happiness, the focus should be on the actions and the good will, morality, and motivation behind it. For example, suppose there are two people, both perform the same actions with the same intentions. But one has a good outcome that was intended, thus resulting in happiness and the other has a bad outcome and is less happy. Someone who receives misfortune may be unable to achieve their goals, but the goodness of their will and their actions still remains. Furthermore, Kant’s idea of happiness and good will disagree with the idea of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that right and wrong is decided by the consequence of an act, and the better the consequence the better the act. On the other hand, Kant perspective is since you can’t control the consequence, you can’t have that decide whether the act is right or wrong. This is because one good action can have many different outcomes that aren’t controllable. In my opinion, many people follow consequentialism, because they want good outcomes, but I think Kant makes an interesting point about not being able to control your outcomes. This raises the question, how do you gain happiness if your good action brings misfortune? A good example, in real life would be enforcing the constitutional rights to free speech. The rules are followed by all, even though “following the rule seems likely to generate negative consequences” (The Conversation