Immanuel Kant states that there is nothing good in excess except a good will. This is said mainly because unlike some virtues, such as courage or perseverance, a good will cannot be used in accordance to evil. A good will is not considered good due to the actions a person takes, it is intrinsically good and is more desirable than any action which comes from it, or the total sum of the actions which have come about because of it.
Having given a decent explanation of what a good will is, Kant sees that there may be an issue with nature by assigning reason to be the commander of will. Nature gives every complex creature a specific end- happiness. Apart from giving us a specific end, nature also provides a means for us to attain happiness, which is called instinct. Although instinct provides a general means of attaining happiness, rational thought impedes this process by creating more trouble rather than simplifying the path to happiness.
This brings Kant to describe the idea of a will that is to be revered in itself, without considering the actions which came about because of it. This brings about the concept of duty which contains a limited good will, which causes the true good will to be seen more radiantly by contrast. An example given, is that of a shopkeeper. As a shopkeeper, prices for goods sold within the shop remain constant for whoever wishes to purchase them. The level of prices, which are constant for everyone, are done for his advantage and not because it was his duty to do so. The moral worth of an action does not lie in its expected effect
Kant then defines duty as: "the duty of an action from respect for law". And follows by describing the defining the law as: "I ought to never act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". All of a persons actions should be in accord with the universal law. With this figurative moral compass a person can easily tell what is a good inclination and what is a bad inclination, and would only perform the behavior which is good.
This would then however, give rise to the tendency to rationalize against strict laws and cast a shadow of doubt on their necessity. By being doubtful, people will begin to make the laws better suited to their own wishes, which begins to corrupt the laws themselves. This then pushes common human reason into the field of philosophy.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can see that from this reading that Kant's view on approaching happiness is quite different than that of Aristotle's. Kant states that a humans instincts are the key and the path to happiness. According to Aristotle this is false, one must practice virtuous activity and have a full life in order to achieve happiness, which is above all the greatest virtue. Aristotle would argue that instincts can be immoral, because they stem from a desire. Desire can be considered immoral because there is no need to base anything utility. Anything based on utility, such as friendships are void because of the fact that they are based upon utility. In order to be virtuous and achieve happiness, one needs to practice virtuous activity. Only then can one achieve happiness after they have lived a full life.
Post a Comment