Immanuel Kant's Idea of Good Will Philosophy Essay Example

In this paper I will discuss Kant’s philosophy on Good Will. First, I will distinguish the difference between motive of duty and inclination. Afterwards, I will explain why it is important for Kant to distinguish between action done in conformity with duty (without immediate inclination, but selfish purpose and with immediate inclination) and why only actions done from duty have moral worth whereas action performed in conformity with duty and from a completely selfless motive lack any moral worth. Afterwards I will discuss a potential counterargument to Kant’s claim that reveals issues within his reasoning. All references used were taken from Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, “Section 1”.

To begin Kant builds his argument on the foundation that good will is not good due to the results that are accomplished, but rather it is determined through its will, and therefore good in itself. It is the only good thing that is innately good.This being said, duty is a moral agent’s moral obligation, in which they act purely because it is the morally correct thing to do rather than the consequences,, it produces. Whereas immediate inclination is the preference for some state over others, which is determined by what one finds pleasurable, its driving factor of human behavior. By having an inclination towards something, you are motivated or driven to complete an action. Some examples include the inclination for honor or gratification

When examining the difference between actions done in conformity with duty and action done from duty the main difference can be determined if the action was done with or without inclination. Actions done in conformity are split up into two categories: (1) actions done in conformity with no immediate inclination, but for selfish reasons and (2) actions done in conformity with immediate inclination, Kant gives examples of both. For the first example Kant uses the example of the Prudent Shopkeeper. The shopkeeper decided to conform to the duty of honesty by not overcharging his inexperienced customers. At first glance, it is obvious that the shopkeeper is conforming with duty and therefore acting from duty, but instead he is acting for his own selfish purpose. Although there is no immediate inclination, the shopkeeper is being honest in order to keep the reputation of being an honorable business, which in turn will bring him business. Kant explains that it is only a coincidence that his own selfish wants alight with the duty of being honest. The second example is explained using the duty to preserve one’s life. Kant states that the agents have an immediate inclination to preserve life and therefore by living life because you love it for example would be an action that is done in conformity with immediate inclination. Now, if you for example, consider a moral agent who is stricken with grief to the point where they have lost all inclination for life, but chooses to live life without having love of it, it would be considered an action done from duty because you are purely acting on your moral obligation to live rather than for any selfish needs or inclinations.

This leads into my next point that only actions done from duty are capable of having any moral worth, this implies that actions done in conformity with duty and completely selfless motive lack any moral worth. In order for an action to have moral worth, the maxim must have moral content and in order to have that the actions must be done on principle. Going back to the example stated above, when we look at (1) the shopkeeper he did not do the action because it was his duty to do so, rather it was for other reasons. He had his own selfish motives and like how I mentioned above it is only a coincidence that his actions lined up with the duty to be honest. Because he acted on his own selfish accord and not from duty, the maxim, a principle in which you act, has no moral content, and therefore cannot have moral worth. Although harder to distinguish, the same can be said for (2) because they choose to live life because they had the immediate inclination to do so. Kant explains that the moral agent protected their life in conformity with duty, but not from duty. Meaning because they had a motive to live besides the duty to do so therefore the maxim has no moral content and so it has no moral worth. The only action that will ever have moral worth are those that are done purely from action and nothing else. Going back to the example that Kant gave. If the moral agent decided to live not because of indication or fear of death, but rather because it is their duty to do so the maxim will have moral content and therefore the action will have genuine moral worth.

A counter argument to Kant’s theory is that: Kant’s definition of duty is too strict and because of this it would be hypothetically impossible to be a good person. Using Kant’s line of reasoning a good person is someone who always does their duty because it is their duty to do so. Although this makes sense, it can’t be applied in all situations. An example that supports this obligation is For example you decide to hide a moral agent, Alex in your house, they tell you that they are hiding from people that are going to kill them. In this situation you decide to save the person because it is your duty to do so. Now if someone comes and asks if you are harboring Alex and says he will kill them. If you are honest with the man because it is your duty to do so Alex ends up dead, but the action would have moral worth, but you would conflict with the duty of beneficence. Vise versa, if you were going to lie in order to save the person, you would go against your duty to be honest. It would be impossible to be a good person if Kant’s definition of duty was true. Kant’s definition of a good person would force everyone to constantly reflect and evaluate their every action, which would be almost impossible, because he does not take human nature into consideration.