An end is an object of free choice and the representation of which determines it to an action. If an end is based off of free choice, is it safe to say that there are ends that are also duties? According to Kant there are two instances in which ends are duties: one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. In achieving one’s own perfection a human being has a duty to lessen his ignorance by instruction and to correct his errors, morally practical reason commands it absolutely and makes this end his duty, so that he may be worthy for society.
The greatest perfection of a human being is to do his duty from duty (for the law to be not only the rule but also the incentive of his actions). When it comes to promoting the happiness of other human beings as an end that is also a duty, one has to make their end your end as well. It is for them to decide what they count as belonging to their happiness, but it is open to you to refuse them any things that according to them will make them happy but that you know it will not.
Why in the world would we want the happiness of others? There is a principle of ethical reward, that rewards those that in accordance with the laws of virtue for promoting what all human beings recognize as their natural end(for making their happiness his own), and that reward is mainly a moral pleasure that goes beyond mere contentment with oneself. If promoting the true well-being of others even when they fail to recognize it (when they are ungrateful) it usually yields no such return but all that it produces is contentment with oneself.
The main principle of the doctrine of virtue is to act in accordance with a maxim of ends that it can be a universal law for everyone to have. In accordance with this principle a human being is an end for himself as well as for others; it is in his duty to make the human being his end. This theme goes back to the formula of end itself.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I understand that one of the instances of which ends are duties is the happiness of others. However, I think this idea is easier said then done. Human beings don't always know what is good for themselves or others. We may think we know what will make others or ourselves happy but we may not be 100% sure. Also, just because we practice our duty to promote the happiness of others does not mean that someone will return the favor.
I found the distinction between happiness for oneself and happiness for others - which you both pointed out in your writings - particularly interesting. When we discussed in class that happiness cannot be related directly to our moral actions as an "end," I assumed that happiness was completely separate from morality. This is one of the concepts that makes Kant's philosophy undesirable for a lot of modern individuals, in my opinion. However, incorporating the happiness of others into his philosophy makes it more relatable and convincing to me. He does not discount or reject the desire for happiness, but places only the happiness of others under the category of morality. This seems legitimate to me because when we seek happiness for ourselves, it is self-serving. Yet seeking the happiness of others serves humanity.
Post a Comment