This paper attempts to show that Kant’s analysis of moral worth is shallow because it does not assign worth on moral endeavours that occur from arguably good motivations. Kant’s criteria revolve around the claim that actions possess moral worth only when we do them for duty itself. I will demonstrate that this is problematic because true moral worth depends on bringing about goodness for other’s sakes, so we should derive inspiration from good willed consequences. I will respond on behalf of Kant that consequential maxims are flawed because consequences can occur due to reasons foreign to our will, so the actions produced from this maxim may not possess unconditional moral worth. Nevertheless, I will reply that contingencies cannot diminish …show more content…
Kant states that an action only possesses moral worth when a person’s maxim directs himself to act for duty’s sake alone. Since the will is good through itself, the moral worth of actions guided by the will never diminishes even when the action fails to produce the intended consequences. Kant’s criteria for moral worth leads to several important restrictions: an action’s moral worth does not depend on the purposes that a person aims to fulfill, even if the desired consequences are arguably desirable. As a result, actions that are inspired by consequential sources of motivation do not possess moral worth. Consequently, all actions can only acquire moral worth once other intentions are removed and it is only performed to absolutely fulfill of one’s duty as an …show more content…
Suppose that a person finds himself in a city with starving people: although the maxim that directs us to act for duty’s sake also compels us to help others, our maxim directs us to fulfill duty for its own sake above other considerations, so the satisfaction of the people in need is posterior in the thought process. It is counter intuitive to claim that the individual’s action has moral worth since he is primarily motivated only to fulfill what duty requires, instead of being motivated to bring about good consequences for other’s sake. As a result, actions that occur only to fulfill what duty requires are shallow accounts because they miss the point about true benevolence. Although it is reasonable to base moral worth on following moral laws for its own sake, it should not follow that consequential sources of motivation do not possess moral worth. On the contrary, actions that occur from consequential maxims possess moral worth because the main motivation comes from the realization that we can improve future outcomes for society. Consequential maxims primarily focuses on creating positive effects for the world, so it is a greater moral action than merely following our duties for their own fulfillment. Consequently, morally worthy actions should use a maxim that
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
To judge one’s moral worth for his or her actions is a very important task. In the play, Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen, the main character, Dr. Stockmann performs in what many would consider a good, but moral worth is not determined by someone making a 10 second analysis of the actions and determining it. In order to determine moral worth, one can use Immanuel Kant’s book, Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals. Within this book, Kant describes how one’s actions can be determined for the purpose of moral worth. Kant goes into detail and uses the cognitive imperative and other ways to determine moral worth.
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
I agree with Kant on this point because, I like to see that my actions are born from a desire to achieve a higher sense of morality, rather than an attempt to just receive some sort of reward for my actions. “A man whose possessions are sufficient for his needs is well-to-do; if he has sufficient not only his needs but also for other purposes, he is a man of means; if he has sufficient for his needs and other purposes and then to spare he is a man of wealth; if he has so much as would enable him to make others also well-to-do, he is rich.” Whenever I
Furthermore, Kant uses the phrase moral worth which he defined as a special value an action has that only deserves credit when it is done from the motive of duty, that is, when someone does an action because it is done from the motive of d...
When Kant says, "For when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principles, which are not seen," in page 19, he is suggesting that a person's true motives behind the action are more important in determining if the action holds true moral value. As Jonathan Bennett, a British philosopher of language and metaphysics who translated Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, says, when moral worth is in question it is not a matter of visible actions but of their invisible inner principles (Bennett, 19). Kant explains that a human being might have inclinations, reasons for doing something, beyond moral reasons. Inclinations are motives (desires, interests, incentives, fears, or impulses) that one may possess, but will sometimes seem hidden when performing an action. If there lies a motive behind carrying out an action, aside for the sake of duty alone, then it can be considered to be i...
A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do, however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X.
Moreover, in consequentialist normative principles " it require us that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action." Then, identify if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences." If based in our analysis the good "consequences are greater," then "the action is morally proper. In the given situation, stealing for food for a hungry child suggest plenty of good consequences when we try to focus on the true and good intention of the agent. We may think that he is good because he/she is trying to save only the boy from hunger or even from tragic death. Thus, millions of children around the world had died because of
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant each made a significant break from other theorists in putting forward a morality that doesn’t require a higher being or god, for a man to recognize his moral duty. Although Hume and Kant shared some basic principals they differed on their view of morality. In comparing the different views on human will and the maxims established to determine moral worth by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, I find their theories on morality have some merit although limited in view.