WEEK 12: Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

I want to try to finish up with Mill's utilitarianism quickly this week to move onto to Kant's deontology. Last week I was trying to make connections between Mill and Hume, this week I want to look out for the connections between Kant and Descartes. Also, I want you to try to think about comparing and contrasting the ethical systems of Mill with that of Kant.

-Mateo Duque.

[joyash22]

"There is nothing it is possible to think anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it , that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will."

Kant states good will is not through what it effects or accomplishes, not for an intended end but for good in itself. 

I have learned that good intentions are everything In a religious Jewish bible class. If you intend to do something you get credit for it. It is considered as if you did the good deed even though you might not have accomplished it. For example I wanted to visit my friends father, I actually went to see him in his room at the rehab center but he was sleeping. I didn't wake him. Do I still get credit for the visit? He didn't know I came. According to Kant I get the credit.

Is Kant proposing if we all have good intentions then our morals as a society will be at a higher level? Is just thinking about good intentions good enough?  

[imusicea92]

"Power,wealthy,honor, even health and that entire well-being and commitment with one's condition, under the name of happiness, make for courage and also thereby for arrogance, where there is not a good will to correct their influence on the mind..."

I agree completely with Kant on this matter. Happiness is not happiness without a good state of being and a good state of mind. For instance, someone with a vast amount of power and honor has to have good intentions in order to truly achieve happiness in their eyes and others such as a philanthropist. One could not be truly healthy and happy if something in their mind was compromised such as a disorder or if they were morally compromised. My question is whether or not Kant's ideas come into play when we are viewing ourselves or others?  This would affect his relation to Mill since Mill always compared morality to others.

[monise_71]

         Kant and Mill address both their views on the motive behind an individual’s action and tell both what is morally right and wrong. However, their ethical systems are different. According to Kant ethical system, a moral action is a duty. For Kant a person is required to act morally no matter the circumstances. He believes that the moral worth of an action should be judged based on the universal definition of what is good or bad. For instance, everyone knows that (by definition) lying is bad, so no matter the consequences no one should lie as well as killing, no matter the circumstances no one is required to take someone’s life because it is against the moral code. He argues that even if the result of an action is favorable, it is not morally right if it does not a duty to act as such.

    In contrast to Kant’s, Mill’s ethical system is based on the principal of the “Greatest-Happiness” which deals with providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. For Mill the motivation behind an individual’s action is not important but the consequence of the action is matter. Based on Mill’s ethical system, as long as an action provides the greatest happiness to the majority of people, this action has moral worth.  Therefore, Mill would say it is morally justify to killing someone who is trying to kill ten (10) other people. In short, For Mill a moral action is based on its outcomes whereas for Kant it depends on the motivation or the reason behind the action.

 

[pesantezkevin]

What I noticed while reading Kant’s reading I noticed this idea of good in comparison to evil.  Good can have no limit and goes on with the person committing the action to want nothing in return.  Lacking the principles of good is what draws them into evil, and soon they turn into a villain which in our eyes is far worse because of the title it is given.  Good is done without wanting to achieve anything or to make it affect something, this form of good is ranked higher than any other because it is something that is born from you without someone having to ask to do something for them or for someone else.  Doing something seen as good even if the action has no result and nothing comes of it, it will still be a greater good than usual because it had a good intention and you tried to change something.  Lets say you open a place that gives away food to the hungry but no one comes and you still keep doing work from day to day.  It still seen as a good action because you are trying, even if you aren’t helping as much people as you would like or even if you don’t get an award for it, the fact that something is being done for people in need and that the idea was born from your thoughts already get seen as a greater good.

[Ali]

Kant's distinction between "pure" reasoning and empirical reasoning was particularly intriguing to me. A universal reasoning based strictly on concepts not tainted by experience seems impossible to attain. I understand Kant's perspective that experience, and self interest brought out by these experiences may distort reasoning, however asking a rational being to disregard all of this is too far fetched  It's as if Kant is likening reasoning to some sort of computer algorithm. According to Kant's logic, reason should have a predetermined response for any occasion. To me, this approach actually limits reasoning. If we separated reason from an individuals beliefs and the society they live in, what would make them any different then some sort of automaton? I assume Mill would have some objections when it comes to this concept, because it would definitely limit freedom of thought and individuality.

 

Also, some comparisons between Descartes and Kant could be drawn.  Whereas Descartes believed perception may distort the truth, Kant believes experiences may distort reasoning.

[elena.pronoza]

“Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant

 “Nothing other than the representation of the law in itself, which obviously occurs in the rational being insofar as it, and not the hoped-for effect, is the determining ground of the will, therefore constitutes that so pre-eminent good which we call “moral”, which is already present in the person himself who acts in accordance with it, but must not first of all be expected from the effect.”

 Kant’s theory of moral is very strong but it brings a lot to argue against it. First of all, how we can be so sure what “moral” is presented in person? Is it because we were born with it? Kant sees pure good as the only thing that is good without any doubts. Theoretically it can be true, but practically notion of “good” is different for each person and each sees some things good that can be considered “not good” for others. We are all different, so, where this “law” lies? Kant’s deontology is very dry and strict; it doesn't allow stepping to the right or to the left and it doesn't give appreciation to “propensity of feeling” which I personally do not understand. How talking about love can be “practical” and not “pathological” if feelings themselves are mostly pathological? On the other hand I need to accept one truth on the side of Kant’s theory. “If, by contrast, adversities and hopeless grief have entirely taken away the taste of life, if the unhappy one, strong of soul, wishes for death and yet preserves life without loving it, not from inclination or fear, but from duty: then maxim has a moral content”, – this is really impressive, because in the situation of grief it is duty that can help person to continue his way, not even help but be a reason for living a life. 

[g.dlegister]

"Now I say that the human being, and in general every rational being, exists as end in itself, not merely as means to the discretionary use of this or that will, but in all its actions, those directed toward itself as well as those directed toward other rational beings" 

In Immanuel Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Rethinking the Western Tradition, What I picked up from this reading and the quotation is the idea that we behave rationally between one another and we act differently towards love ones and total strangers. So human beings a more cautious of the're own action and  dialogic, with that we tend to censor ourselves  From what I understand, We try to control what we do , so we don't look like fools and we don't embarrass  others. This is when our morals play in to the choices we make, the freedom or obligation, I believe Kant express and idea of behavioral and moral choices go hand and hand with each other.  Doe's our behavior dictate our morals or morals dictate our behavior?

[Ellie]

“the concept of a good will, to be esteemed in itself and without any further aim” (4397)Kant is saying that a true good will is something that is good in itself without any strings or other particular purpose  that led to it. Kant goes on to say that one can even easily differentiate between the two types of will behind an action.“it is easy to distinguish whether the action in conformity with this duty is done from duty or from a self-seeking aim.” (4397)

I don’t think that Kants idea of a ‘good will’ is something that people can achieve. I mean, in a hypothetical sense, I get what Kant is trying to say as to what a good will is and how you can even easily see the difference between an action of pure good will as opposed to one that isn’t. It sounds lofty, great, desirable, and all that.

But in theory, I just don’t understand how there can be even one single action that someone can do with a completely ‘good’ and otherwise baseless intention. There is no such thing. Every single action that someone can (and does) do, has some self seeking (or as I call it, selfish) aim. Which is excessively depressing if you actually think about it, but since I have yet to find even one action that is done purely ‘from duty’ (all I want is one, just one!), then I’m just going to continue assuming that it’s likely true (and it doesn’t exist)

Take something like volunteering, (which I used to think could be that one thing that’s done with a total and pure good will) it has a self-seeking aim. The aim can be to impress others by volunteering, better your name, have a better chance at getting a job, getting experience…whatever it is, it’s still being done with the intent that the volunteer will get something beneficial out of it. Even those volunteers who volunteer purely ‘for the good’, have a self-seeking aim which is usually to make themselves feel better about themselves, or to feel good about making a difference. Maybe it’s not such a direct self-seeking aim, but that’s still what it is, so if even volunteering wouldn’t be considered as something done ‘from duty’, is there actually anything that can possibly be considered ‘from duty’?

I was always taught that the only thing that can be considered as purely from 'good will' was burying a dead body that one happened upon (reason being something to the effect of them not being able to repay you). But I would think that is kind of like volunteering. So if that is nixed then there is nothing else. Absolutely nothing.

[Elvira Toporova]

Both are concerned with the moral qualities of actions or choices; neither is much interested in "virtue ethics" about what makes a "good person".

Kant's theory, however, is deontological, meaning that it locates the moral worth of an action in the action itself, or in the intention behind it, rather than in the consequences of the action. Mill is more of a consequentialist, believing that the goodness of an action is measured by what its outcomes are. Kant believes that the good action is one in accordance with our duty, and this is known by the fact that it accords with the categorical imperative. Mill is more of a utilitarian (although not a crude one, like his father James,Jeremy Bentham. He locates the goodness in the amount of happiness it gives rise to, and takes issue with Kant over what could be described as his "empty formalism". 

Both, however, are passionately interested in liberty for individuals. Kant because human autonomy is the essence of morality. Mill because he believes that allowing people liberty will lead to the best type of society that we can aspire to.

[stephane1]

"There is nothing it is possible to think anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it , that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will." Since the first time i've ever read about Kant i always wanted to ask him one question, which is his definition of good, what makes something good,and what makes something else bad. this is one of the reasons why i support Mill instead of Kant philosophies, mill seems more real and more in tact with real life than Kant, Kant to me just write as we live in his schitzophrenic world of peopple with good will and we're all saints, i can't deal with that. i have studied Kant vs Mill in depth in my previous ethic course up till today i still can't swallow his ideas, Kant ideas does not support torturing a criminal just to get information where something "Good" can come out of, such as someone who kidnaps a child and hiding the child if you torture this person to tell you were the child is hidden, that goes against Kant philosophies, but not Mills, and then Kant to me contradicts himself whenever he says good without limitation, it's just like saying good his good to a certain extent.  

[t.rivera511]

"There is nothing it is possible to think anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, only excepting only a good will."

Who has good will? Honestly, I can only ever think that Jesus Christ has good will but does Kant believe in him?  Having beliefs or religion, as many say it is, aside, who can possibly determine who or what has good will but someone else who also has good will? Or does it take someone who knows they aren't good know what good is? But what if the evilest person-who doesn't think they are evil- think they are good? Who is to say they aren't good because we who label them evil say they aren't? To me, saying one is good or bad is like saying this Earth is ours because we simply live in it. Who gives us the right? We ourselves give us authority over whatever. We give people power by encouraging them and agreeing with them because they have a stronger mind or will than others just like we give higher values to papers with different print on them. We corrupt ourselves. This good will is hard to believe in because everyone in this world is surrounded by so many 'bad' that we ourselves create. that we are because of our thoughts of entitlement.  (Probably went totally off track and made no sense) 

[yuliyazhivotenko]

The good will is good not through what it effects or accomplishes, not though its efficacy for attaining any intended end, but only through its willing , i.e., good in itself and considered for itself, without comparision,..."

Through out the first whole section Kants argument is based on the idea that it is very important on what the foundation of goodness is not by what or how society sees it. A person should be good for his/her own rational being, nobody elses. One shouldnt do good to seek good outcomes but instead just do good and act upon those good actions. When seeking good actions, it gives an individual the opportunity a reason and based upon that reason an individual acts rightfully/wrongfully . For example if someone is cheating on a test, that person might get the higher grade on the test than you do, but morally you are doing the right thing by not cheating, no matter if that means failing the test.

[andrewaalvarez10]

I actually didn't agree with anything Kant was saying until I got to the part on duty and ran into this, "They protect their life, to be sure, in conformity with duty, but not from duty." This is something I came across in some of my travels over this past summer. What this quote is saying is that people feel obligated to help other people not because they know it's a right thing to do but that they were raised to think it was right without any other thought to why it's right to care for people. It's a good thing to help people even if it is because of moral conformity but it is something that is good to look at in a macro way. I don't think that duties and good will are the same thing as morals though. This is because morals is more of the etiquette of how you live in one particular society and good will and duties is more of the natural understanding everyone has for perserving human life. That's why I mildly disagree with Kant because he claimed he was looking for a universal morals for the everyone in the world but he should be looking for the naturalistic duties we have as beings.

[nadiahamidi7]

Why Kant would have liked Robin Hood

Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" was particularly an interesting read. While I try not to be biased while reading anything, I couldn't help but view Kant's ideologies as a sort of modern day "religious man." When searching Wikipedia for Kant's religious views, I was a little surprised to find that he was agnostic. While he does believe in God, Kant believes that organized religion is a sort of disservice to the faith and God. I don't want to delve deep into Kant's beliefs since it is not entirely relevant to my post--but I couldn't help but mention it!

The reason I immediately viewed Kant as having religious ideologies is because most religions preach "Actions are based on intentions." Even if the outcome is bad or not what you expected, having a good intention is what ultimately yields good rewards. I think this notion is what attracts a lot of people, including myself to religion. As stated by Mill, all humans are fallible. Since we are fallible, it would be unfair for people (or God) of higher standing to judge us accordingly. For example, if a car accident happens where one person dies, the surviving person in the other car will not be punished (assuming there was no drugs or alcohol involved) because the occurrence was simply an accident that yielded an unfavorable outcome.

Now here's where Robin Hood comes in:

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the character of Robin Hood, he is an outlaw who steals from the rich to give to the poor. He is a character in English storytelling that people love for his heroism. Even though stealing is unlawful, Robin Hood is viewed as a good outlaw because his intentions are to distribute the wealth among the poor who are bombarded with unfair taxes. In Disney's Robin Hood (the version I am most familiar with) the characters are anthropomorphic; Robin Hood being a fox (sly), John being a lion (king), and so on. 

Kant states "the good will is good not through what it effects or accomplishes...but only through its willing...even if through the peculiar disfavor of fate...if with its greatest effort nothing were accomplished...it would shine like a jewel for itself, as something that has its full worth..." (10). I tried to sum up the long passage, but I found this quote to be remarkable. I thought to myself, "Finally, a human who values intentions over actions!" Therefore, Robin Hood's actions are "jewels" despite the king and town sheriff's efforts to eradicate him.

More so, Kant claims we all have a "duty, which contains that of a good will" (13) and it is necessary to "distinguish whether the action...is done from duty or self-seeking aim" (13). Kant is saying that as a human being, we all have a responsibility to possess good intentions to help each other but to be able to distinguish between something of good nature, and something of self-aggrandizement or ulterior motives.

So maybe, Robin Hood enjoys the praises of the poor people of Nottingham and his intentions aren't good! But how are we to distinguish? Kant goes on to give an interesting example involving a merchant. He explains how the merchant should have one set price for every item regardless of the customer: children should be charged as the elderly and so on. Kant calls this "honesty" (13) which I agree with, but then simultaneously states the merchant has a self-serving aim for the very same reason! This bit confused me a little!

Here are the questions I have: If every human being is inherently good, why would there need to be a need to distinguish between intentions if it is our duty to perform actions with the most sincere intentions? Also, Kant uses the word, "peculiar" (10) when describing a bad outcome of a good intention. By using this word, I assume Kant expects all/most good intentions to yield good outcomes. Even though he states a bad outcome is still acceptable if the intentions are good, I wonder why Kant has so much faith in the inner-workings of the world to produce a good outcome when a good intention lies behind it.

[rbrutusjr]

I found this reading quite interesting and I agree with everything that was said. The part that the I liked the most is when Kant was talking about "moral law". I think Kant's moral law is based upon not going against what you stand for or what you're saying. You can not expect something from someone but expect a different reaction when you do it.  I think his argument is similar in how in the Bible it mentions how you should treat others the way you want to be treated. If you lie but expect other people to believe you, you contradict yourself. The motives you have are wrong when you lie as you are trying to cheat someone or deceive them . Therefore lying can be considered immoral or unethical. 

[rbrutusjr]

Another idea that I really liked was the idea that actions are to be based on the motivation of it. I found it interesting how Kant thinks that people should be judged on the motives behind their actions. It could also be controversial thing. For example, if someone commits a crime to save someone or protect someone, does that mean they should not be held accountable. This is where I have a bit of an issue with this statement. It does depend on the severity and can vary from case to case but I don't thin that people could be judged solely on their motivation. There are many real life cases or scenarios that can be drawn up to support this theory. Bot overall I do think that a person's motives should definitely be taken into consideration when judging someone's actions because sometimes their motives or behavior can either set them free or incriminate them. 

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"Power, wealth, honor, even health, and that entire well being and contentment with ones condition, under the name of happiness, make for courage and thereby also often for arrogance where there is not a good will..." First sec. pg 9

I understood this passage from Kant, as him saying that even though we try and strive for the good things in life, and we have good intentions sometimes bad still comes from it.  Pretty much everyone tries to do well in life, and, live with good morals in hopes to have power, wealth, good health etc. same examples that Kant gave, and to try to get all those things we work hard and do what we think is right to receive them.  As Kant said these are the things under the name of "happiness", but many times along with this "happiness" people tend to let it take over their lives so much that they become "too good" for people or "better" then others.  This is where Kant says arrogance comes along.  Its hard to say your doing something for good will and living by morals of life because in the end their is always something that people want its almost as if we are never happy.  It really takes alot to say your doing something for the good of someone or something else.  I agree with Kant in that there is some arrogance or even selfishness in the good people do.  Does this mean that there really is no good will that I can do?  

[monise_71]

            
                Kant, In the search for and establishment of principle for morality, argues that only "Good Will is good and he says it straightforward; "There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world...that can be held to be good without limitation excepting only "good will" He  does not believes that any outcome or the  result of any action is good. Because pleasure, happiness or even wealth and power could result out of the most evil act. I might agree with him on this point, because when we are thinking about our past in history, Europeans in the conquest of the world, for instance, they did a lot of wrong to other civilizations in order to extend their power and find new resources for the wealth of their own countries. Also, he does not believe in good character traits like integrity, intelligence, courage etc. because all of them could be used for evil act. For instance, obstacles may prevent an individual to achieve a goal, however the good will remain.

       Based on Kant's theory "good" cannot  come from inclination. we might think that a positive goal of an action, like make people happy or provide some benefit, determine the goodness of the action, but Kant completely disagree with such argument In short, according to Kant, anything that is conditional or related to inclination is not good. For him, the good will is the only unconditional good.

[dahlia4808]

Aristotle nicomachean Ethics talks about the good in everyone. Aristotle views , be quiet honest I'm am confused to how Aristotle uses good. Is Aristotle and John Stuart Mill referring to the same argument , views on happiness and how good it is? In order for us to be good in our lives we must first by happy. If we are to be happy in anything we do, we need to good at it. Happiness n good will have to work together in order for us to reach our full destiny.

Dahlia

.

[jay]

hi

 For Kant's and his groundwork was very easy to relate to because I believe in what he had stated in the clip. He first started of talking about the Logic, ethic and physics, but the one I like the most is logic and the laws of nature / freedom. I believe that this logic should be base on experiences. Why? because I think it gives people a ground to stand on and helps them to express themselves more.

Pure moral should have a common ground where it is reasonable for everyone. when he talk about the law"You ought not to lie" as a genuinely moral law is he saying that it should not only be for human being, but  then to my understanding talk about an exception to law of lying.

There are pros and cons of the goodwill and the qualities are even contribution to goodwill. That everyone have some hidden agenda and does not permit them self to held absolutely good to this. Right 

[AYGUL KULA]

For Kant good will and reasoning is important.  He claims that ethic is not based on human nature or on feelings, but is based on reasoning.

The “moral law” is categorical and necessary, binding all persons and rational beings.  

“For as to what is to be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it must also happen for the sake of this law: “ Person intention is important in moral law. Doing something good accidently is not enough. The reason, intention and action are related in moral law.  For example a child is drowning in the ocean and an adult person B is swimming next to the child. But that person B is afraid to save any drowning people because it requires special technic to save a drowning person and it can be dangerous situation for person B.  But somehow the child was able to rich the person B and person B saved the child’s life. But the person B intension was not to save the child. He/she did something good and confirmed the moral law but his/her intention was different.

[yuliyazhivotenko]

Kants ethical theory is known as deontology, which focuses on duty and on what one ought to do. Kant believes that the only thing that is really good is a "good will". In other words, what makes a particular action good or bad depends on the intention that was behind that action. With that being said, consequences dont matter and one should follow his/her duty. For our reasons for our actions, Kant has two kinds of imperatives, categorical and hypothetical. Categorical are duties that only you have and thats it, hypothetical are means towards another ends. Out of these two, Kant thinks that the better one is categorical, because these categorical imperatives are las we give to ourself and follow them. 

Kant is between Rationalism and Empiricism. Descartes was a Rationalist, where one gains knowledge from some kind of rational insight, using the knowledge A Priori. Where Hume is an Empiricist and believes all knowledge begins with experience, and bases its knowledge with A Posteriori. Kant uses both A Priori and A Posteriori, but he includes mathematics, physics and metaphysics in his arguements.