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.

[tayo.ojudun]

To secure one's own happiness is a duty (at least indirectly), for the lack of contentment with one's condition, in a crowd of many sorrows and amid unsatisfied needs, can easily become great temptation to the violation of duties. (Kant 15)

I deal with this on a constant basis. Ideally I would like to live my life by "Treat others as you would like to be treated, even when they aren't treating you the way you would like to be treated". But this becomes extremely difficult when my own feelings of happiness or at least contentment are not where I would like them to be. It's a difficult duty to be kind to others when you aren't quite in the right mood. These are just humanly functions in all honest; it isn't right, but it's just how some of us are wired. Kant previously mentioned a perfect example about the person whose soul was so "sympathetically attuned"(14) and that takes "an inner gratification in spreading joy around them"(14), but then somehow clouded with grief. He no longer satisfied his duty of spreading joy, being pleasant when you're upset isn't really something I would consider a natural human function, though Kant may argue it still remains a duty. 

Just as helping others is a duty so is securing your own happiness. Securing your own happiness only makes the job of being "sympathetically attuned" that much more easy to an extent. We violate our duty to others so often especially in NYC that it's just natural to be this way, no explanation or excuse needed. It's even a bit sad for me to think my happiness triumphs all else, we as a whole body of people are too self-centered. If everyone were to put someone else before themselves no one would ever have to worry about themselves. The idea of putting oneself after another, which is what I believe Kant is trying to push is a bit idealistic. It's possible, anything is possible, but it would take an immense amount of effort and people aren't into putting effort into things. Instead of living by "Treat others as you would like to be treated, even when they aren't treating you the way you would like to be treated"; we live by the easiest way is the best way. We  desensitize, we close our eyes from viewing all the things that make us human or that could cause us to take action (the garment factory collapse in Bangladesh). It's sad our we love our fellow humans, duties go undone. This idea of as long as I am happy nothing else really matters is the exact thing that makes us less human.  

[iriejam796]

"In fact we also find that the more a cultivated reason gives itself over to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further the human being falls short of true contentment." No matter how hard mankind try to attain happiness and contentment there is always some kind of obstacles that will prevent that from happening. First of all I have to say that everyone's definition of happiness is looked at in many different perspective and cannot be measured the same way. With so much going on in this world  today it's very hard for people to find happiness. People are faced with a lot of financial hardship that they have no other choice to treat their neighbors without love, respect and dignity. I don't think mankind was born with these intent, but this is how society said it ought to be  People should live their lives how they want as long as they abide by the law and they do not violate other peoples's rights. I think If a person uses his/her conscience to do what is morally right then he/she  should attained a certain degree of happiness.

People sometimes say that being virtuous can lead to happiness. Are they right? I have mixed feelings about that statement, because no matter how  kindhearted a person is, it doesn't take away the fact that bad things can't and will not happen to them. Many people think age comes with experience, which is true, but it doesn't mean that people are not liable to make mistakes. Therefore I think the only virtuous and righteous person that ever walked this earth is God, so it doesn't give mankind the right to judge each other. 

[Duvall Ledbetter]

"Yet it is a misfortune that the concept of happiness is such an indeterminate concept that although every human being wishes to attain it, he can never say, determinately and in a way that is harmonious with himself, what he really wishes and wills." (Kant 34). 

I believe that Kant speaks for most people when he says that happiness is something that isn't black or white. It wouldn't sound right if we gave happiness a 1-10 scale. This would prove to be difficult to measure considering the fact that "being happy" has a variety of meanings. Also, I think Kant was trying to dig deeper into the human spirit by noting that "he can never say what he really wishes and wills". If you think about it, we as humans don't even know what the definition of happiness is. We evolve everyday that a complex emotion like happiness is too abstract to put a meaning to. 

I wonder if Kant believes the same thing about sadness. People have a good sense of when they are upset. Is the concept of happiness the same as being sad?

 

 

[trinimjs]

Kant

“Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and sober reflection not only are good for many aims, but seen even to constitute a part of the inner worth of a person.” Pg#10

I agree with Kant regarding the statement above because people need to approach things in moderation in doing so they will make much better decision for themselves and others. An anxious person must likely will make harsh decision and must of the time it may be a bad decision. When a person has self-control and a passion for which he or she is after; the decisions being made is sound, and you really would see the value of the person.  On the other hand spontaneous decision often leads to destruction, for example a person who chose to follow his or her friends and ends up in trouble often reflect and realize the decision made was not a favorable one; and would leave that person feeling disappointed in his or her self.  We always want the best a person have to offer, And this is why I love Kant’s concept.

[tresjoli17]

“There is nothing it is possible to think of 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.”

I chose this sentence because I covered the idea of the “good will” in my Business ethics class a few semesters back. I agree with Kant. “Good will” is pure and not motivated by any intended outcome or any sense of obligation. If a person believes that they are performing a service out of good will, but they have any feeling of doubt, expectation, or obligation, then the task cannot be considered “good will”. At the same time, I feel like good will is hard to define because I personally do things out of “good will” because it gives me satisfaction. I like to help people if I can, especially people that are really in need of help. I know my helping them is the right thing to do and the outcome will be beneficial to them. So in saying this, can my actions still be considered good will? I believe it can be since I really do not get anything out of it except the feeling of accomplishment, but I feel like Kant would disagree.

 

“…the good will appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of the worthiness to be happy.”

I believe Kant meant that the measure of one’s good will towards others in the world, determines how worthy they are as person to obtain happiness. And I also agree with this. Good people deserve to happy.

As far as a comparisson between Kant and Des Cartes, I feel the idea of "good will" is not something material. It is an aspect of a person's character and actions. Des Cartes seemed to dwell more on matters of the mind and impressions but I believe even Des Cartes can agree that the  good will of one person be impressed upon another.

[laquintaclark]

Kants ideals of separating philosophy into parts is interesting. Whereas nothing can be classified as just one term anymore, there are different meanings I believe and he states that when describing philosophy. I don't quite understand metaphysics but through his description "if it is limited to determinate objects of the understanding, then it is called metaphysics" sort of shines some light on the subject matter. His ethical standpoint of why one wouldn't interfere with another's life if they had made the choice to not basically step on their toes is how, I believe, we think sometimes today. I've definately heard someone say, "let him make his own mistake that way he can learn from it", will this help the person in the end, we don't know.

[Givan]

Kant believes that only actions from duty have moral worth. Basically Kant is saying is that in order for a person’s actions to have the utmost morality, these deeds first and foremost have to be performed out of the goodness of one’s heart. Further, these deeds must be genuine and without any interest of personal gain. Only then would those deeds be viewed as being right.  Recently, whilst my friend and I were bonding over beers and basketball he made a statement that stuck with me. I thought it was quite humorous yet disturbing. He said that he looks forward to helping women in the subway stations carry their baby strollers or even bags up the stairs; because they would view him as a nice guy and would potentially want to go out with him. Kant would view this action as being wrong, simply because my friend didn’t help this lady out of the goodness of his heart. Rather, he did so for his own personal gain.  Kant thinks that it is all about knowing our duty as a member of society, and we as individuals need to be correctly motivated as well. Also, if we have an alternate intention for doing the right thing; then this action should be viewed as being morally wrong. I personally think Kant wants us to move away from our personal desires and not let our expected consequences get in the way. Until we act in such a way, we will never be viewed as morally stable or good will driven.

[jimborat69]

I see that our law collates with our moral obligation and responsibilities. Don’t we all agree that laws are created by man and don’t they also have morals to follow? I do believe that laws changes to be more acceptable for our morals.  It’s just like the cops when you get pull over. They have the authority to enforce the law but don’t they base it on their moral. Of course not everybody is guilty until proven in court but my point is when you get pullover the cops has the upper hand. He/She will follow his/her moral before giving you a ticket. How many stories have we heard that they did not get a ticket? On the other hand how many stories we hear that the cop is an a**hole.

By saying that the law co-response with our moral, I think Kant is more like Hume because the laws changes because of Morals and I think morals comes from experience that we learn from our parents and other elder people around us.

[asiyebodur91]

"For if I deviate from the
principle of duty, then this is quite certainly evil; but if I desert my maxim
of prudence, then that can sometimes be very advantageous to me, even
though it is safer to remain with it."

What I take from this sentence is that, lying is not moral and it breaks the law but if you get rid of your maxim, which is the practical law, and then  if you lie there is no harm in it. I picked this sentence because I also have hard time dealing with lies and to what extend is it moral. Giving false promises over and over again can lead to an idea of promises do not exist.. and it will be hard to decipher reality from whats false. overall, i found this article pretty hard to follow ( even thou i read spark  notes-which didnt help). 

[gulyabigela]

I found interesting how Kant differentiates the meaning of the good outcome based on the reasons, or will, which lead to it. He gives an example of dealing with inconvenient promise: "When I am in a tight spot, may I not make a promise with the intention of not keeping it?" and tries to understand real causes of why he would not give such promise. Thus, he concludes that even the denial to give a promise that he would not keep does not specifically show that it is a good act, and comes from other motives, rather than from the duty, or the pure moral reasoning. I start to think about, and came to the conclusion, that it is very suitable to the educating children. Indeed, in many situation they act in a right way only to avoid punishment, but without real distinguishing the right from wrong. I also believe that most of these children gradually will come to these "universal laws" through real life experience, reading books and continuous education. However, I believe that these laws may be not so universal and have to be seen through prism of social structure of various parts of the world.

[m.inam.gul]

"Now morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in itself, because only through morality is it possible to be a legislative member in the realms of ends. Thus morality and humanity, insofar as it is capable of morality, is that alone which has dignity"

Kant purposed several moral principles, first is that actions are moral if it was done for the sake of morality. Second is that the action is judged not by the consequence but the intention and motive. And third is actions are moral if they are done out of respect of moral law and not by own motivation or desire. 

To an extent i do agree with the deontology perspective, that you should inspect the intentions and what the specific duty is.But iam not sure if to be a rational human being and to pose dignity, one has to always obligate to their moral duty. Because i believe that it is almost impossible to find examples of pure moral actions. I think every action that we do can be somehow attributed to interest or motivation other than pure morality.

[Carmen Wang]

Comparisons between "Kant" & "Descartes" & "Mill"

"In fact we also find that the more a cultivated reason gives itself over to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further the human being falls short of true contentment [...] and on this account in the end they sooner envy than despise humans beings of the more common stamp, who are closer to the guidance of mere natural instinct and do not permit their reason much influence over their deeds and omissions." (Kant, AK 4:395)  

Descartes' philosophy on metaphysics was about having a rational mind, and that is who we are. Mill's ethical view believes the use of educating minds to produce effective consequences of good actions. While Kant stresses the morals of a human beings that allows us to do good, such as the motives of the will. He says we naturally want to do good, from the sense of duty or maxim but does not think so much of the consequence or the gain it aims for. In my understanding, that is what I think Kant is trying to describe and I'm a bit confused. I think a human needs a bit of everything to do good because a human is created with a mind that reasons, a will that desires good motives, and a body that acts based on its reasons and motives. For example, a person performs an action by going to college. We can determine whether this action is good based on the person's reasons and motives. One person may go to college for its personal contentment. The person may reason to go to college only for advancement for career and money to improve his living condition. This type of gain and expectation results in the consequences for a desire in self-achievement and praise and recognition from society. Another person may go to college to use their education as a means to serve other people, and advance other people's life and contentment because he loves people. The person uses his rational mind to understand that a doctor can reduce the death and sickness of people, and can heal them of their pain. He sees that the outcome will yield happiness in other people's lives. 

Is it possible to do good without an expected effect? I mean I'm a person with a mind, and I like to think there is a purpose for everything I do, even when I do good. Is not the effect what motivates me also to do good? There has to be a reason for why I need to do good.

[Linda Chen]

"To be beneficent where one can is a duty, and besides this there are some souls so sympathetically attuned that, even without any other motive of
vanity or utility to self, take an inner gratification in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the contentment of others insofar as it is their
own work" (pg33).

I agree with Kant in the fact that as humans, we subconsciously want to help people. It's an act of sharing "joy" with other around us for the sake of "morals". For instance, helping an older man or woman cross the street creates a sense of "pleasure" that you are doing the right action and helping others for the greater good. Another way of looking at this scenario would be to understand that it is morally right to help an older person. in this case, help was not given to receive 'pleasure" but rather to obey morals. The person who helped that older adult did his "duty" for the former good of society.

[racquelallwood1987]

"Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law."  When Kant says this I feel that he means that once a person know what it is they are not suppose to do then they abide by it and morality comes into play; the law says that it is wrong to do something then the individual knows that it is wrong and respect the law.    For example, one knows that it is wrong to steal therefore they understand this law because they have a conscience and he or she knows the effect stealing have on their society. This means that they would have respect for the law and what it is worth.  As a result, if you have integrity then you just have to abide by this concept and this is where it becomes a necessity because you have conscience and understanding. 

 Totally in agreement with Kant but there are times when people doesn't abide by this concept does this mean that they have no respect for the law? or is it that they just have respect for the law but are carefree because of the fact that they want to see how others would react when they don't respect the law?

 

[staceydavidyants]

"To be beneficent where one can is a duty, and besides this there are some souls so sympathetically attuned18 that, even without any other motive of vanity or utility to self, take an inner gratification in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the contentment of others insofar as it is their own work."

While I do believe that there are people out there who do good for others completely selflessly, I think that people like are very rare. Most of us believe in the idea of karma, what goes around comes around, and because of that our morals arise from the idea that you shouldn't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. There have been so many instances where my friends have done a good deed, such as find someone's cell phone and go out of their way to find the owner and return it, and then say "Wow, I really hope that if I ever lose my phone, this will come back to me and someone will be as nice as I was." Wanting some sort of a return for your kindness is an inevitable trait, even if that return is just the feeling that you did a good deed and helped someone in need. You feel accomplished that you had the ability to do something for someone else. Kant says that such an action has no moral worth as it is an action from duty, but I don't agree with that. I believe that such an action shows your morals and shows to what extent you want to help others. Conforming to duty means conforming to something that you must do, but in reality no person is forced to do good for others unless it involves paying tax money that inevitably goes to minorities. In any other case, a good deed is not a duty, it is a selfless action that a person has a choice to do or not do. For example, donating blood is not a duty, but it is a action that a person can do that shows they have good morals and they want to help others. Even if they'll never know who they helped, or what their story is, they still feel that they did good and influenced someone else's life in a positive way. 

[taniki0108]

Kant's philosophy was more in favor of Decartes and the opposite of Hume.  Kant believe in the innate or natural ideas, that you are born with certain knowledge and that it has less to do with experience.  He's saying that people aim to protect themselves and find happiness, which I think is true.  I feel that if you are happy you make other people happy, because from daily experiences people who are miserable always want to make others miserable. My grandmother use to say "misery loves company." Happiness can mean different things to different people, because some people only believe in the happiness of themselves and not of others.  Sometimes people help others out of the goodness of their heart, it was not their duty to do it but they did it anyway because it made them feel good about themselves and it made them feel some form of satisfaction.  While others help people in the form of duty, like in the case of a doctor who has to do everything in his duty to save the life of a person who has just claimed the life of others.   

[racquelallwood1987]

 I totally agree with your explanation because when you see it as a duty to help others then I feel the individual would be more happy. If each person thinks about putting a person before them then they truly don't have to worry about their own happiness. Doing on to others as you would want them do onto you  would definitely bring happiness and therefore less self-centered people would be in the world.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"Logic can have no empirical part, i.e., a part such that the universal and necessary laws of thinking rest on grounds that are taken from experience.." (pg 4?)

Here Kant is saying that logic is something that does not need experience. If you need it experience it would not be logic but an empirical reasoning or law.

This is very similar to Descartes's thinking because he beliefs that the mind is intellect and that you do not need experience,that you have logic. In this matter Kant and Descartes think alike. Kant thinks that everything that has some sort of outside information is somewhat a law or practical rule. I do not know if i really agree with him or with Hume because not everyone is able to use logic, isn't logic learn? Or as Kant says, it would not be consider logic if it is learn.

[Blanca]

"But now in order to develop the concept of a good will, to be esteemed in itself and without any further aim, just as it dwells already17 in the naturally healthy understanding, which does not need to be taught but rather only to be enlightened, this concept always standing over the estimation of the entire worth of our actions and constituting the condition for everything else: we will put before ourselves the concept of duty, which contains that of a good will, though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making it unrecognizable, rather elevate it by contrast and let it shine forth all the more brightly"

I agree with the ideas of Kant about the actions of a person that has moral worth. One should make wise decisions and genuine ones for the good of ones own inner self rather that then whatever gain they may get from it. Kant also argues that we violate principles of morality when we contradict ourselves. He believes that we cotradict ourselves when we act in a way that we don't want others to act or when we treat others with disrespect and expect for others to respect us. For example, we may hate people who lie to us, yet we lie all the time.

[kenlyv]

"There is nothing it is possible to think of 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."

 

I believe Kant saying that when something is dealing with good there are limitation but if a person is trying to do good there is a limited to what good that person can do.  

We have specific standards for something to be classified as good or bad, but we have no way of knowing if good intentions actually lead to something good until we see the end result. For example the U.S. government is bombing foreign nations with the intention of killing terrorists. Despite their good intentions there are many innocent victims. Even with the good intention of protecting their citizens, Most people would view America's actions as bad.

[lrwilen4]

"This will may therefore not be the single and entire good, but it must be the highest good, and the condition for all the rest, even for every demand for happiness, in which case it can be united with the wisdom of nature, when one perceives that the culture of reason, which is required for the former,"

even though i do not have a clear understanding of what kant is saying but i can debate that i disagree that will is the highest good. it really all depends on what a person perceives as good. just because someone has the will to do what they are doing does not make it the highest good. i would think the highest good is doing what is morally correct even when one does not want to. will can not equal good because good is a state of being and not an achievement. also, will does not get allow one to gain wisdom of nature. wisdom of nature is gained with age and experience nothing else. i do agree with the idea that will brings happiness.... i am not sure if i understand kant but at least i gave it a shot

[kenlyv]

The good will is good not through what it effects or accomplishes, not through its efficacy for attaining any intended end, but only through its willing, i.e., good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison, it is to be estimated far higher than anything that could be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, of the sum of all inclinations.

Kant is saying that it doesn't matter what one's goal is, as long as they had good intentions. For example, even if that person had to kill one person to save millions, it is considered a good act. In other words, the means justify the ends. Also, if the end result is good but as person had to do bad things to achieve it, that does not necessarily make the act good. It is the intention that defines the morality of an act.

[Amanda Murat]

Kant described one of the advance moral duties" is the moral quality of an action , it is judged not according to consequences , but according to the motive that produce it". I find this to be very interesting because everyone in deed do things with reason to reach a final resullt. But Kant states that people may have a reason for something and the end results may not be a positive outcome,but the intial purpose of their actions defines the consequeces that shiuld follow.

 

I agree , everyone has their own selfish motives for their actions, But what is not always looked at is how ones actions can affect the others around them. I think this is what Kant's argument is that one may  be in favor to please themselves , but the others around affect by their actions .This does not make the person a bad person if their intentions was not to hurt others.For instance a cigarette  smoker who may smoke with others around , their intentions is to please themselves, but the people around are now second hand smokers who may cough or have future lung problems .

[gulyabigela]

In our class discussion I was moved by the Kant's idea that every person knows exactly what is right in each specific situation, and if he did not act according to this almost intuitive understanding of the moral laws, he regrets about it after. I tried to remember every situation, where I encounter tough moral choice, and what I felt later on if I did something that contradicts to my perceiving of moral laws. I realized it is true indeed, we know exactly how we should act, but sometimes we choose different patterns and ways, because the impact of our emotions, fears, some trivial desires, or far-sighted outcomes. Thus, when people say that in the exact situation they thought that they do their best - they lie, maybe to themselves too. It is actually hard to acknowledge and admit that our mind always gives as the right decision, but we ignore it, often quite aware of future consequences of our behavior. Before I had the similar ideas, but this statement came as a revelation to me and put everything in the right place. 

In addition, Kant insists that duty is more important than the happiness. It continues the idea of doing the right thing at the proper time, because if we behave bad, we will feel regret, which will eliminate the brief feeling of happiness right away.

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

"Hence a lie defined merely as an intentionally untruthful declaration to another man does not require the additional condition that it must do harm to another, as jurists require in their definition ( mendacium est falsiloquium in praeidicium alterius ). 14 For a lie harms another; if not another human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right.

While I was reading the text this piece caught my eye. Kant is correct when he says that a lie may not hurt someone but it may nevertheless harm humanity. A lie can snowball into something dangerous for another person or a group of people. Kant goes later into using murder as an example along with lieing for that murderer. When you lie, no matter how small or big, you must be held accountable for the havoc it may cause. If you are to lie for a murderer your actions and the actions of another are held accountable to you since you had the power to stop him/her. Even if you were to lie to save someone you may unknowingly cause them more harm and thereby accountable for said persons actions.

[Amanda Murat]

After the class discussion on  Kant i it was brought to my attention the difference in Kant's theory of Mortality to Mills. Initially I viewed both theories to be very similar , but later came to realize that Kants goal is to determine the foundation of  morality ,He believes that good will is good an with self control a nd conscious one should know what is right and what is wrong.