Kant: Duty and Moral worth
Introduction
The duty and moral worth as put by Kant is quite intriguing. His beliefs on duty and moral worth are derived from his own original assessment. His heart philosophy has actually raised some heated debate on whether his moral dealings actually have moral worth or whether they are performed from the motive of duty. Additionally, there are questions seeking to highlight whether actions carried out of motives such as friendship, sympathy, love among others are morally good. Kant provides judgment for every action that is carried out with an intention.
He argues that there a number of actions which are carried out because they are right. Other actions are carried because of mixed motives while others are carried out because they are a duty to us. Kant views on what actions are right is quite intriguing. Doing something because you are capable of doing it, according to Kant shows that you have both moral value as well as motive of duty (Kant, 15). He provides that when a personal does an action in order to show his ability, then the ability that he is showing to other people is his motive of duty.
However, if one does or doesn’t do something because of other reasons which has no motives, then he/she lacks moral value. For instance, if one does something which lacks motive of duty because it is wrong, then his/her actions lacks moral value. However the above views are in support of Kant views. On the contrary there are other views that do not support Kant philosophy of moral worth and duty. For instance, if a person does an action that is wrong and contrary to the law, then this person can not be acting from the motive of duty but the action has no moral value in sense that he/she is doing something which is wrong but for a purpose. What this person lacks is motive of duty because what he is doing is wrong .Kant views on such cases is that since this person is doing something and he knows is wrong, he lacks motive of duty as well as moral worth. Such issues raises objection to Kant philosophy.
Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty
Commonsense thoughts from Kant’s point of view actually commences with the idea that what is good is a good will. The thought of good will is a significant commonsense criterion that Kant employs throughout his work. Basically what causes people to be good is the will that one has. This will is the only one that establishes or forms what is moral worth. Notably, the thought of good will according to Kant leads one to making decisions that he/she thinks that they contain some moral worthiness (Kant, 15). Good will causes one to take moral contemplations in their inner self which eventually help in holding reasons which guide ones behavior.
However, human being highly value good will though Kant believes that we as human beings value it without restrictions or prerequisite. From this notion, Kant means that human beings do not regard moral goodness as worth sacrifice so as to get some enviable object. Nevertheless, the worthiness of all traits that are enviable such as cleverness or audacity can actually be given up under specific circumstances.
Courage that requires some acts of injustice can actually be put aside. From Kant’s point of view, courage in doing something is the motive of duty. Conversely, if the courage or cleverness is used to do something that is wrong especially in regard to the law, then that individual’s actions do not contain moral worth as well as motive of duty. For instance, if a prisoner warden manages to help a prisoner who is his friend to escape from the cells, which is indeed wrong; this warden lacks both moral value and motive of duty as much as he is following his emotions to help out his friend. This is because Kant Views good will as actions that are done by a good person and the actions should also be good and should not be directed by any condition. It is for these reasons that the prison warden lacks moral worth because his actions are not good and they are connected to personal interests and welfare of his friend. However, from a different perspective, the warden lacks motive of duty because his actions are wrong according to the law but he indeed has moral values (Kant, 15). His actions are directed into helping his prison friend.
Acquiring and upholding moral goodness according to Kant is actually the stipulation under which everything else is gotten or pursued. Aptitude and pleasure are of value to us if only they do not necessitate us to abandon our essential moral assurance. From this understanding, the worthiness of good will can not under any circumstance revolves on specific valuable ends but should instead be independent and should not rely on certain conditions (Kant, 15). Therefore, good will must be excellent in itself and should not be good in regard to its connections and attachment to other effects such as agents welfare or happiness.
However, good will has a motive whose decisions are resolute by moral demands or moral law. This law is viewed by people as a restriction on their aspirations. In addition, people also view the moral law to be influential and aggravated by idea of duty. According to Kant, a holy will despite its goodness cannot be good since it is actually motivated by ideas of duty. Holy wills should be completely free from wishes which cannot operate separately from morality. The presence of desires that can actually function separately from moral demands makes goodness possessed by human beings to be restrictive. Nonetheless, constraints are significant elements of the thought of duty. Precisely, human beings are forced by the idea that that they are restricted to take actions in specific ways that may be contrary to what they want or possibly a notion that we possess moral duties.
Kant further asserts that comparison between inspiration and duty with other types of purposes especially self-maintainance, happiness, sympathy and more importantly self interests confirms actions of good will which in itself is not good. Any obedient action which is dependant of the mentioned motives, no matter how good it is, fails to express good will. For instance, if an action is believed to have moral value if it only articulates a good will, then according to Kant such events lacks moral worth (Kant, 25).
Kant further stresses that ones actions are consistent to duty if they are not entirely connected by content of one’s will. For example, if a person is motivated by pleasure and this person carryout action which do not conspire with his pleasure only, then such a person has not done his duty. On the other hand, if a person replaces his motivations with aim of duty, then the morality of his activities expresses his/her determination to carry out an action obediently regardless of the circumstances. Such a person’s actions according to Kant have a moral worth.
However, Kant’s beliefs are controversial. This is because human beings perform actions not for the sake of duties but because we carryout these actions out of compassion as well emotional unease for others especially the things we undertake for our loved ones, families as well as friends. According to Kant, moral worth involves actions that are aggravated by duty and no other aims, love or friendship, can make your actions to have moral value. I think what is of more importance is to show good will in your action no matter what (Kant, 45).However, Kant provides that actions that articulate good will are important when the inspirational composition of the agent is arranged in a way that that creates room for considerations of priority of duty over the other interests.
In addition Kant asserts that despite the fact that an action has moral worth if it is in accordance with the motive of duty, the action should also be in accordance to the maxim. This means that actions with have moral worth triggered by motive of duty should also be in accordance to the moral law (Kant, 25). However, these actions should be specified by a specific part of the maxim. For instance a person who is wiling to do something should do it not because he/she want to gain something in return but because the action is morally right and in accordance with motives of duty.
To some extent I think Kant views are practical. This is because his views are applied by most people in the society we live in today. Majority of human beings carry out tasks because they have the potential to carry them (Kant, 34). The potential is the motive of duty while most of the actions carried out by people should have moral worth.
Kant further highlights that moral worth and motive of duty should be in line with maxim, and only some part of maxim should be followed. For example a robber has the courage, power and the will to break in other peoples’ houses, though is actions have motive of duty, which is the courage, will and power, they do not have moral worth. This is because his maxim is “to break in the house in order to steal”. From this action, the robber‘s has no moral worth despite a motive of duty because his maxim has two parts, the part that shows what actions he is will to carrying and the part that shows the inappropriateness of his actions (Kant, 34).
I think Kant views are correct because they direct the actions of human beings as well as protect them. The objection that human beings perform actions out of compassion and not duty or maxim is wrong. This is because if human beings were left to follow their emotions then all sorts of immorality should have filled the world. Emotions can actually lead someone into performing a task that is morally wrong as well as unlawful. Therefore Kant’s views are correct since this is what governs our society and not emotion or compassion.
Conclusion
Kant’s philosophical views provide that human beings should be directed by moral worth, motive of duty as well as maxim in carrying out their day to day actions. An actions that lacks these aspects is regarded has having no moral worthiness. However, Kant’s views are rational and are applicable in the society today. His views are a good tool for fighting immorality in the society and this is the reason why I think they are correct.
Work Cited
Immanuel Kant. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. New York: Broadview Press, 2005
