Kant: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals
Topic: freedom and will, Part B, Reading: Kant, Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section Text available at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt Journals due on March 31.
In Kant’s argument in the second section of the Metaphysic of moral, he argues that It is impossible to say by experience with complete certainty a single case of an action right in itself but rested simply on moral grounds and on the conception of duty which I agree with Kant’s argument, most people’s decisions and actions is affected by the moral principle of duty. Kant also argues that the principle of morality must be tested by itself whether it is worthy to serve as the concept of morality which he uses an example of the Holy One of the Gospels must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before we can recognize Him as such. He also mention that imperatives are only formula to express the relation of objective laws (laws of good) of all volition to the subjective imperfection of the will of this or that rational being which is the human will. Imperatives could be either hypothetical or categorical. The hypothetical imperative only says that action is good for some purpose, possible or actual while the categorical imperative declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to any purpose. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle of which it is itself a result and this imperative may be called that of morality. There is an also general imperative of skill consisting of problems expressing that some end is possible for us and of imperatives directing how it may be attained.
This was an interesting read as well. Kant says that our actions are moral only if they are performed out of a pure sense of duty. I agree with this because I think that to judge whether an action is moral or not should be based on the purity of the action. If someone does something for secondary reasons, then his actions aren’t pure in the sense that the individual has other purposes for doing the action. Thus, according to Kant, his actions aren't moral.
Kant also argues by saying that it would be impossible for us to derive universal moral laws from specific events and specific experiences. I agree with Kant on this statement because specific events and experiences are dependent on specific circumstances. As a result, universal moral laws cannot be dependent on specific situations. Rather, they should encompass all sorts of occurrences.
Kant also introduces imperatives. Imperatives are either hypothetical or categorical. Kant says that “the former represents the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed. The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end.” Later Kant shows that duties should be based on a categorical rather than a hypothetical imperative. He also brings examples such as suicide or repaying debts to prove this point.
In this reading Immanuel Kant states what may be right in particular cases, as being what the laws of a certain place and of a certain time say or may have said. Therefore if there is some necessary law that compels rational beings to follow the categorical imperative, that law must be based on the concept of the “will” of a rational being. More over it much more difficult to determine whether what they have enacted is right in itself, and to lay down a universal criterion by which right and wrong is in general, and what is just and unjust, may be recognized. Since rational beings may pursue certain “end” using appropriate means. Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will always provide. However, the categorical imperative may be based only on something that is an “end in itself” that I think means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose. And rational beings are ends in themselves. Rational beings must always view themselves not only as means to some purpose, but as ends in themselves. Kant empirical laws may furnish him with excellent guidance, therefore, the conditions under which the voluntary actions of any person can be harmonized in reality with the voluntary actions of every other person, because of the universal law of freedom. There are four examples of duty that were mentioned in the reading. When people commit suicide, they treat their own life as a mere means for escaping an upsetting situation. When people make false promises to repay debts, they treat the people they have borrowed from as a mere means to their own financial gain. More over humanity is view as an end in itself that requires for us to pursue the maximum fulfillment of humanity's potential, which means that we must cultivate our talents. Similarly, it is the view of humanity as an end in itself which requires for us to work towards maximum happiness for humanity, which means that we must take care for the welfare of others. Kant also notes that rational being is an end in itself which is universal and applies to all rational beings. Therefore, it comes from reason, not from experience.
I just finished reading Kant, Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section.Kant's topic was pretty interesting.Kant talks alot about principle and how everything we do is influenced my our moral values.I agree with this statement.I think our moral values come to play in every aspect of our lives everyday.Parents tend to teach their kids at a young age whats right and wrong with that they develop values and hopefully hold on to them.Even as an adult these morality is still part of a person.Even if somebody wanted to steal a candy from a store im sure in the back of his head the person is thinking that its not right.And with that the person can either stop himself from doing it or he can steal it but later regret it.
In the first paragraph of the metaphysic of morals it was stated that it is not easy to act upon duty but instead enact from the prescribe of duty. Men are meanly put as an example of appliance of duty but they don not only concentrate on men; also on the rational humans. In order for one to believe in God one should study their own perspective of moral ability. They also gave an explanation about how the concept of ethics was found. for example, it was said, "this implies that we first found ethics on metaphysics, and then, when it is firmly established, procure a hearing for it by giving it a popular character." It was also mentioned that moral principles are not based on the properties of human nature. The concept of moral laws exercises on the human heart. This quote I am about to state is applied in one's everyday life. "Everything in nature works according to laws," I agree with this quote because without the use of laws this world will be a disaster and no one would be left alive. The concept of objective principle is called command (of reason) and its formula is known as imperative. There are two defects of hypothetical imperative...they are (1) problematic and (2) an assertorial practical principle. The word prudence is seen in two different senses: knowledge of the world and the private of prudence. The imperatives are more thoroughly explained when they are broken down into skills (technical), counsels (pragmatic), and commands (moral). There were 4 different examples emphasized in the text on how human beings attempt the conception of duty and establish whether their decision affects them in anyway. At the end of the text it was mentioned that practical imperative means the treat of humanity.
In the book, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”, written by Kant, freedom and will was discussed and the true meaning of ones actions. In this section Kant argued that an individuals actions are moral only if they are done out of pure duty. I believe that ones actions are moral only if they are done out of pure duty. Although this is the case, many individuals do not follow this principle. One may do good actions only to impress their peers. One may donate a large amount of money to charity in order to be popular among a group, instead of doing it to help those in need. Although actions are not considered moral if they weren’t done out of pure duty many individuals forget this important fact. According to Kant, if an individuals actions are done out of pure duty then his actions are considered moral. I agree with Kant on this particular subject. In this section Kant also discusses how will and principles are related. Kant gives us four examples of different duties. The 1st is a man whom is very upset with his life and is contemplating on whether to commit suicide or not, this individual thinks that taking his life will be better than dealing with the problems he has encountered. The 2nd example is an individual whom is in need of money and needs to borrow although he knows that he cannot repay it. He tells the person that he will repay them in time. The 3rd is a man whom will find himself in a comfortable situation but he would avoid the difficulties that can make him a better person. The 4th example is an individual who can help others but chooses not to because they already seem happy.
Kant’s argued the concept of morality. I found this reading very interesting because we all can agree that everyone have their own moral value that they follow. And we apply the moral principle everyday in our lives based on reasoning. Kant argues that the principle of morality must be tested by itself whether it is worthy to serve as the concept of morality and morality cannot legitimately be grounded merely in human nature, even as it applies to humans and applies in a way that is sensitive to our nature. The moral value of the action can only from principle. The ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law. I agree with the idea that our actions are moral only if they are performed as duty. We all have moral value in some extend but if we do not put it to the action it is useless.
This text was very intesresting, he talk about moral values. Everyone has their own moral values that were thought at home, but its something that has to develop in you naturally. Its something that we all use everyday, to do the right and what is right. Its always easier to do the wrong think, but you have to be strong to use your moral values to do the right thing everyday of our lives.
In Kants writing he speaks a lot about morals. He ties in morals with the law etc. I believe a moral learned from birth will stick to someone until they die. Sometimes if a parent teaches their child a specific belief it sticks to them for most of their time on earth living. They apply it to their everyday living. Whereas there are those who are taught one way of seeing things and morals/ values but then grow into another belief. Morals are what sustains an individual and keeps them well grounded in life. many might not agree with what anothe values. Morals are basically what someone values most, is what I believe.
In Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section written by Kant. Kant talks about morals, freedom and will. Kant tells us if we don't deny that morality has any truth or reference to any possible object, we must admit that its law must be valid, not only to men but all rational animals as well. He tells us that we see God as the supreme good. Examples serve only for encouragement. People are moral sometimes because they fear God. "If then there is no genuine supreme principle of morality but what must rest simply on pure reason, independent of all experience." He is basically telling us that morality comes from rationality. Kant also tells us that only if you act moral because you believe its your duty, then you are truly moral. If you act moral to impress someone or out of fear, then that is not moral.
In this text Kant is developing an understanding of moral principles. Kent thinks actions are moral if they attempted for morality alone and not by the other motives. I agree with him because if we are doing moral actions just to get something out of it and not for its own self then it’s not moral. Most of us do good moral things just to get something out it. For example fame, honor, and recognizetion. So, all such actions are from our greed. So I feel there is example of pure moral action. All of our actions are performed in order to get some interest or motivation and Kant will also feel the same.
This reading by immanuel kant was very interesting, long but interesting. one special quote that gets me in this reading is when Kant says "Without being an enemy of virtue, a cool observer, one that does not mistake the wish for good, however lively, for its reality, may sometimes doubt whether true virtue is actually found anywhere in the world". it interested me because i am the one that believes that virtue might not be able to be found in the world. Kant talks about morals i understood but when he starting to talk about god i got lost, but back to the issue of moral values here are sum questions i would like to be answered. what could be considered as moral values? is it a value because u were taught it? if thats the cases does everyone have the same moral values? if u dont follow it and go the totally oppsite route all in all it was a interesting reding
From the metaphysic of moral by Kent, he argued that human beings have no morality. That, for you to have morality you should have experience. He continue to argue that it is absolutely impossible to make out by experience with complete certainty a single case in which the maxim of an action, however right in itself, rested simply on moral grounds and on the conception of duty. Kent narrates that virtue is a spiritual process that it takes what you don’t see to be virtue, Even the Holy One of the Gospels must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before we can recognize Him as such, but from the impact and good natural out come, then you can tell. He argued that I am willing to admit out of love of humanity that even most of our actions are correct, but if we look closer at them we everywhere come upon the dear self which is always prominent, which with that I agree with Kent. That every action we take is influenced by our moral values. Not all we do it right, base on the society and the community we in today, the guilt would still be a fresh wound. That sometimes we human beings are enemy of virtue. That not all human race wish good to one another, the morality doesn’t permit them to have such sense and kindness. I agree that experience is the best teacher, teaching from experience give us an idea of morality. Kent argues that the Moral principles are not based on properties of human nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves. Kent explains more clearly, which I agree with he’s metaphysics.
i haven't finish reading but this is part really peek my interest when Kant says “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations.” From my understanding, this piece is saying that no matter what the decision to do a good will is always a good choice. This is kind of like what I’ve always heard growing up as a child. For example even if you don’t feel like doing something positive or good for someone just by deciding to do it is a good will.
In Kant's writings, one of the main concepts is the influence of duty when it comes to actons. According to Kant, our morality is based on how purely our actions depend on our duty. Duty being, our intent to do good with our actions.
I can't seem to agree with this saying, because in the end, no action can truly be 100% pure of intent. Furthermore, it sort of clashes with hume's statements that our actions are determined by will, and our will has no liberty, but all have to an extent, a sort of necessity. Therefore, a person's intentions cannot be purely out of duty to do good, but will always have a hint of necessity. For example, in the case given in class the other day with a thief who steals to prevent starvation, even if he is in the minority who chooses not to steal, isn't it still a "necessity" to stay true to his values? At that moment, that necessity simply took prescedent over the necessity to eat.
But then again, who said that the two, necessity and duty, can't both be present? The saying "There is a necessity to fulfill one's duty" implies the fact that both can. I suppose its just the way its written that has me disgreeing. Specifically, the "Pure Sense of Duty", because there will always be an extent of necessity in our actions.
I found Kant's emphasis on metaphysical morality very interesting in accordance to his philosophy on man and duty. In compliance to Kant's argument that duty is internal, and is self-imposed. We all live by rules most of the time and these binding rules are unconditional in our everyday actions. Honesty is an example of internal duty. I live my daily life(self examination)on rules that I'll never act in a way that will make my family ashamed of me. However, I believe that our internal duty is guided by the others subjective perceptions. So, are our actions really an internal philosophy of duty?
the reading by Imanuell Kant speaks of duty. the reading seems to explain duty is an obligation , but yet a respect for moral law. for example an act would have to consist from duty to have moral act. you can't do it on purpose because then it isn't moral. i agree with this statement, because a good act cannot be something that you plan in someways for moral praise. for example if you are planning days in advance to give your lunch to a homeless man so that your coworkers see you and say you are a kind person, that isn't a moral act of duty. the act has to be good with out any qualifications in return. i would like to explore more of this topic< because it can go different ways for some people.
In the readings of Kant he speaks of many topics. He questions our moral worth and says its not the actions which we see its the one that we don't see. He speaks about principles and morality. The principle of morality is on pure reason and on all experience. We act according to the laws and that the will is practical reason. He speaks alot about imperatives, which ther is two problematical and assertorial practical principle. Our duty is done in our conformity and in result it has a moral worth. Our duties have a good or bad effect on our actions. Our moral values are how we grow up and what we believe inside of us.
In Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section written by Kant, he talks free will and morality. According to Kant morality is base on freedom, if we were free we would act according to ourselves and not according to passion. Kant said that we believe that we have free will and act according to our freedom but he disagrees with that.This was very familiar because we discussed this during class. I disagree because i will always because we do what we want, because of passion and we have passion because we desire. It is our own freedom to desire and our choice if we act on it or not.
In Kant’s argument in the second section of the Metaphysic of moral, he argues that
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to say by experience with complete certainty a single case of an action right in itself but rested simply on moral grounds and on the conception of duty which I agree with Kant’s argument, most people’s decisions and actions is affected by the moral principle of duty. Kant also argues that the principle of morality must be tested by itself whether it is worthy to serve as the concept of morality which he uses an example of the Holy One of the Gospels must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before we can recognize Him as such. He also mention that imperatives are only formula to express the relation of objective laws (laws of good) of all volition to the subjective imperfection of the will of this or that rational being which is the human will. Imperatives could be either hypothetical or categorical. The hypothetical imperative only says that action is good for some purpose, possible or actual while the categorical imperative declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to any purpose. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle of which it is itself a result and this imperative may be called that of morality. There is an also general imperative of skill consisting of problems expressing that some end is possible for us and of imperatives directing how it may be attained.
This was an interesting read as well. Kant says that our actions are moral only if they are performed out of a pure sense of duty. I agree with this because I think that to judge whether an action is moral or not should be based on the purity of the action. If someone does something for secondary reasons, then his actions aren’t pure in the sense that the individual has other purposes for doing the action. Thus, according to Kant, his actions aren't moral.
ReplyDeleteKant also argues by saying that it would be impossible for us to derive universal moral laws from specific events and specific experiences. I agree with Kant on this statement because specific events and experiences are dependent on specific circumstances. As a result, universal moral laws cannot be dependent on specific situations. Rather, they should encompass all sorts of occurrences.
Kant also introduces imperatives. Imperatives are either hypothetical or categorical.
Kant says that “the former represents the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed. The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end.” Later Kant shows that duties should be based on a categorical rather than a hypothetical imperative. He also brings examples such as suicide or repaying debts to prove this point.
In this reading Immanuel Kant states what may be right in particular cases, as being what the laws of a certain place and of a certain time say or may have said. Therefore if there is some necessary law that compels rational beings to follow the categorical imperative, that law must be based on the concept of the “will” of a rational being. More over it much more difficult to determine whether what they have enacted is right in itself, and to lay down a universal criterion by which right and wrong is in general, and what is just and unjust, may be recognized. Since rational beings may pursue certain “end” using appropriate means. Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will always provide. However, the categorical imperative may be based only on something that is an “end in itself” that I think means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose. And rational beings are ends in themselves. Rational beings must always view themselves not only as means to some purpose, but as ends in themselves.
ReplyDeleteKant empirical laws may furnish him with excellent guidance, therefore, the conditions under which the voluntary actions of any person can be harmonized in reality with the voluntary actions of every other person, because of the universal law of freedom. There are four examples of duty that were mentioned in the reading. When people commit suicide, they treat their own life as a mere means for escaping an upsetting situation. When people make false promises to repay debts, they treat the people they have borrowed from as a mere means to their own financial gain. More over humanity is view as an end in itself that requires for us to pursue the maximum fulfillment of humanity's potential, which means that we must cultivate our talents. Similarly, it is the view of humanity as an end in itself which requires for us to work towards maximum happiness for humanity, which means that we must take care for the welfare of others. Kant also notes that rational being is an end in itself which is universal and applies to all rational beings. Therefore, it comes from reason, not from experience.
I just finished reading Kant, Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section.Kant's topic was pretty interesting.Kant talks alot about principle and how everything we do is influenced my our moral values.I agree with this statement.I think our moral values come to play in every aspect of our lives everyday.Parents tend to teach their kids at a young age whats right and wrong with that they develop values and hopefully hold on to them.Even as an adult these morality is still part of a person.Even if somebody wanted to steal a candy from a store im sure in the back of his head the person is thinking that its not right.And with that the person can either stop himself from doing it or he can steal it but later regret it.
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph of the metaphysic of morals it was stated that it is not easy to act upon duty but instead enact from the prescribe of duty. Men are meanly put as an example of appliance of duty but they don not only concentrate on men; also on the rational humans. In order for one to believe in God one should study their own perspective of moral ability. They also gave an explanation about how the concept of ethics was found. for example, it was said, "this implies that we first found ethics on metaphysics, and then, when it is firmly established, procure a hearing for it by giving it a popular character." It was also mentioned that moral principles are not based on the properties of human nature. The concept of moral laws exercises on the human heart. This quote I am about to state is applied in one's everyday life. "Everything in nature works according to laws," I agree with this quote because without the use of laws this world will be a disaster and no one would be left alive. The concept of objective principle is called command (of reason) and its formula is known as imperative. There are two defects of hypothetical imperative...they are (1) problematic and (2) an assertorial practical principle. The word prudence is seen in two different senses: knowledge of the world and the private of prudence. The imperatives are more thoroughly explained when they are broken down into skills (technical), counsels (pragmatic), and commands (moral). There were 4 different examples emphasized in the text on how human beings attempt the conception of duty and establish whether their decision affects them in anyway. At the end of the text it was mentioned that practical imperative means the treat of humanity.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”, written by Kant, freedom and will was discussed and the true meaning of ones actions. In this section Kant argued that an individuals actions are moral only if they are done out of pure duty. I believe that ones actions are moral only if they are done out of pure duty. Although this is the case, many individuals do not follow this principle. One may do good actions only to impress their peers. One may donate a large amount of money to charity in order to be popular among a group, instead of doing it to help those in need. Although actions are not considered moral if they weren’t done out of pure duty many individuals forget this important fact. According to Kant, if an individuals actions are done out of pure duty then his actions are considered moral. I agree with Kant on this particular subject. In this section Kant also discusses how will and principles are related. Kant gives us four examples of different duties. The 1st is a man whom is very upset with his life and is contemplating on whether to commit suicide or not, this individual thinks that taking his life will be better than dealing with the problems he has encountered. The 2nd example is an individual whom is in need of money and needs to borrow although he knows that he cannot repay it. He tells the person that he will repay them in time. The 3rd is a man whom will find himself in a comfortable situation but he would avoid the difficulties that can make him a better person. The 4th example is an individual who can help others but chooses not to because they already seem happy.
ReplyDeleteKant’s argued the concept of morality. I found this reading very interesting because we all can agree that everyone have their own moral value that they follow. And we apply the moral principle everyday in our lives based on reasoning. Kant argues that the principle of morality must be tested by itself whether it is worthy to serve as the concept of morality and morality cannot legitimately be grounded merely in human nature, even as it applies to humans and applies in a way that is sensitive to our nature. The moral value of the action can only from principle. The ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law. I agree with the idea that our actions are moral only if they are performed as duty. We all have moral value in some extend but if we do not put it to the action it is useless.
ReplyDeleteThis text was very intesresting, he talk about moral values. Everyone has their own moral values that were thought at home, but its something that has to develop in you naturally. Its something that we all use everyday, to do the right and what is right. Its always easier to do the wrong think, but you have to be strong to use your moral values to do the right thing everyday of our lives.
ReplyDeleteIn Kants writing he speaks a lot about morals. He ties in morals with the law etc. I believe a moral learned from birth will stick to someone until they die. Sometimes if a parent teaches their child a specific belief it sticks to them for most of their time on earth living. They apply it to their everyday living. Whereas there are those who are taught one way of seeing things and morals/ values but then grow into another belief. Morals are what sustains an individual and keeps them well grounded in life. many might not agree with what anothe values. Morals are basically what someone values most, is what I believe.
ReplyDelete- Jennifer Bordes
In Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section written by Kant. Kant talks about morals, freedom and will. Kant tells us if we don't deny that morality has any truth or reference to any possible object, we must admit that its law must be valid, not only to men but all rational animals as well. He tells us that we see God as the supreme good. Examples serve only for encouragement. People are moral sometimes because they fear God. "If then there is no genuine supreme principle of morality but what
ReplyDeletemust rest simply on pure reason, independent of all experience." He is basically telling us that morality comes from rationality. Kant also tells us that only if you act moral because you believe its your duty, then you are truly moral. If you act moral to impress someone or out of fear, then that is not moral.
In this text Kant is developing an understanding of moral principles. Kent thinks actions are moral if they attempted for morality alone and not by the other motives. I agree with him because if we are doing moral actions just to get something out of it and not for its own self then it’s not moral. Most of us do good moral things just to get something out it. For example fame, honor, and recognizetion. So, all such actions are from our greed. So I feel there is example of pure moral action. All of our actions are performed in order to get some interest or motivation and Kant will also feel the same.
ReplyDeleteThis reading by immanuel kant was very interesting, long but interesting. one special quote that gets me in this reading is when Kant says "Without being an enemy of virtue, a cool observer, one that does not
ReplyDeletemistake the wish for good, however lively, for its reality, may
sometimes doubt whether true virtue is actually found anywhere in
the world". it interested me because i am the one that believes that virtue might not be able to be found in the world. Kant talks about morals i understood but when he starting to talk about god i got lost, but back to the issue of moral values here are sum questions i would like to be answered. what could be considered as moral values? is it a value because u were taught it? if thats the cases does everyone have the same moral values? if u dont follow it and go the totally oppsite route all in all it was a interesting reding
From the metaphysic of moral by Kent, he argued that human beings have no morality. That, for you to have morality you should have experience. He continue to argue that it is absolutely impossible to make out by experience with complete certainty a single case in which the maxim of an action, however right in itself, rested simply on moral grounds and on the conception of duty. Kent narrates that virtue is a spiritual process that it takes what you don’t see to be virtue, Even the Holy One of the Gospels must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before we can recognize Him as such, but from the impact and good natural out come, then you can tell. He argued that I am willing to admit out of love of humanity that even most of our actions are correct, but if we look closer at them we everywhere come upon the dear self which is always prominent, which with that I agree with Kent. That every action we take is influenced by our moral values. Not all we do it right, base on the society and the community we in today, the guilt would still be a fresh wound. That sometimes we human beings are enemy of virtue. That not all human race wish good to one another, the morality doesn’t permit them to have such sense and kindness. I agree that experience is the best teacher, teaching from experience give us an idea of morality. Kent argues that the Moral principles are not based on properties of human nature, but must subsist a priori of themselves. Kent explains more clearly, which I agree with he’s metaphysics.
ReplyDeletei haven't finish reading but this is part really peek my interest when Kant says “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations.” From my understanding, this piece is saying that no matter what the decision to do a good will is always a good choice. This is kind of like what I’ve always heard growing up as a child. For example even if you don’t feel like doing something positive or good for someone just by deciding to do it is a good will.
ReplyDeleteIn Kant's writings, one of the main concepts is the influence of duty when it comes to actons. According to Kant, our morality is based on how purely our actions depend on our duty. Duty being, our intent to do good with our actions.
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to agree with this saying, because in the end, no action can truly be 100% pure of intent. Furthermore, it sort of clashes with hume's statements that our actions are determined by will, and our will has no liberty, but all have to an extent, a sort of necessity. Therefore, a person's intentions cannot be purely out of duty to do good, but will always have a hint of necessity. For example, in the case given in class the other day with a thief who steals to prevent starvation, even if he is in the minority who chooses not to steal, isn't it still a "necessity" to stay true to his values? At that moment, that necessity simply took prescedent over the necessity to eat.
But then again, who said that the two, necessity and duty, can't both be present? The saying "There is a necessity to fulfill one's duty" implies the fact that both can. I suppose its just the way its written that has me disgreeing. Specifically, the "Pure Sense of Duty", because there will always be an extent of necessity in our actions.
I found Kant's emphasis on metaphysical morality very interesting in accordance to his philosophy on man and duty. In compliance to Kant's argument that duty is internal, and is self-imposed. We all live by rules most of the time and these binding rules are unconditional in our everyday actions. Honesty is an example of internal duty. I live my daily life(self examination)on rules that I'll never act in a way that will make my family ashamed of me. However, I believe that our internal duty is guided by the others subjective perceptions. So, are our actions really an internal philosophy of duty?
ReplyDeletethe reading by Imanuell Kant speaks of duty. the reading seems to explain duty is an obligation , but yet a respect for moral law. for example an act would have to consist from duty to have moral act. you can't do it on purpose because then it isn't moral. i agree with this statement, because a good act cannot be something that you plan in someways for moral praise. for example if you are planning days in advance to give your lunch to a homeless man so that your coworkers see you and say you are a kind person, that isn't a moral act of duty. the act has to be good with out any qualifications in return. i would like to explore more of this topic< because it can go different ways for some people.
ReplyDeleteIn the readings of Kant he speaks of many topics. He questions our moral worth and says its not the actions which we see its the one that we don't see. He speaks about principles and morality. The principle of morality is on pure reason and on all experience. We act according to the laws and that the will is practical reason. He speaks alot about imperatives, which ther is two problematical and assertorial practical principle. Our duty is done in our conformity and in result it has a moral worth. Our duties have a good or bad effect on our actions. Our moral values are how we grow up and what we believe inside of us.
ReplyDeleteIn Metaphysic of Morals, 2nd Section written by Kant, he talks free will and morality. According to Kant morality is base on freedom, if we were free we would act according to ourselves and not according to passion. Kant said that we believe that we have free will and act according to our freedom but he disagrees with that.This was very familiar because we discussed this during class. I disagree because i will always because we do what we want, because of passion and we have passion because we desire. It is our own freedom to desire and our choice if we act on it or not.
ReplyDelete