Ethics exam week three reading comp
6. Why is the purpose of the rational will not happiness? pp. 4:394-396 - Brooks
). Instead, Kant believes it is instinct that contributes to happiness. He notes that those who do experience high reason often envy those "who are closer to the guidance of mere natural instinct" because it is those individuals who tend to have higher happiness (Kant 4:396). Allison, very good work. Kant thinks that very frequently our reason is pretty awful at leading us to happiness. He thinks our inclination is a better guide to happiness. This is one reason why he doesn't think ethics has very much to do with happiness (very different than Mill in that respect). For instance, think of all the times you might have thought that X would make you happy (and you had rational reason for thinking so) but then you got X and you were not happy at all. This has happened to me a number of times and it would be surprising to meet a person who can honestly say otherwise.
20. Explain what Kant means on pp. 4:402 when he says "Since I have robbed the will of every inducement that might arise for it as a consequence of obeying any particular law, nothing is left but the conformity of actions to universal law as such." Staten AND Stottlemyre
, very good work. Once a person relies upon reason to make decisions as opposed to predicated outcomes then Kant thinks it is very clear that your moral decision making will result in a universal and categorical code. From rationality follows universal moral rules. Kant thinks that it is a concern for consequences that could tend to drive us away from a universal moral code of conduct.
16. What does it mean to act with reverence for law? pp. 4:400-401 - Migatz
.Jessica, good overview. If a person has reverence for a law or principle they have a deep respect for it and do not abide by it merely to avoid negative consequences. Take an example from the law to illustrate this: speeding laws. Now some people might well have reverence for speeding laws. But to test whether or not a a person has true reverence we would have to ask if a person would abide by the law even if there were no fines or raise in insurance rates or points against a license or any other sanction for speeding. If a person would still not speed then they have reverence for law but if they would speed absent such sanctions they do not have reverence for the law.
4. How is a good will good? pp. 4:393-394 - Beeson
A good will is good in and of itself, with nothing else added to it. A good will should stand alone and be called good simply because of what it is. Kant explains this concept in his book The Metaphysics of Morals, stating, "A good will is good not because of what it effects, or accomplishes, not because of its fitness to attain some intended end, but good just by its willing, i.e. in itself; and, considered by itself, it is to be esteemed beyond compare much higher than anything that could ever be brought about by it in favor of some inclination, and indeed, if you will, the sum of all inclinations (4:394)." This means that it doesn't matter what a good will may be trying to accomplish, or what ulterior motives it may hold. As a result of this statement, Kant believes that even if a good will doesn't accomplish what it is set out to accomplish, it does not matter, because the good will can stand alone. Kant supports this claim by stating, " then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself" (4:394). Ultimately, Kant believes that a good will is good only if there are no conditions attached. Skyler, excellent work! The comparison Kant uses between the good will and a jewel is especially illuminating. The good will is not good, as you note, because of what it does but instead because of what it is. The good will for Kant is intrinsically good. it is good because it is goodness and not because it brings about anything or accomplished anything. This moral focus on motive rather than outcome or result makes Kant's approach to ethics very different than Mill's approach.
2. Why does Kant claim that the only thing good without qualification is a good will? pp. 4:393-394 - Bailey
A good will is the condition or qualification of all other good things. Kant begins the discussion of his moral philosophy with multiple claims about the "good will": A good will is good without qualification, i.e. good in itself. A good will is the highest good in his eyes. Some qualities are even conducive to good will itself and can make it work much easier; but regardless of this they have no inner unconditional worth, but always presuppose a good will, which limits the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held. Kant speaks on the overall importance of good will. Kant says "without principles of a good will they[people] can become most evil, and the cold blood of a scoundrel makes him not only far more dangerous, but also immediately more loathsome in our eyes than he would have been taken to be without it." ( 4:393) By cantor saying this, he compares the lack of good will to being outright evil. "A good will is good not because of what it effects, or accomplishes, not because of its fitness to attain some intended end, but good just by its willing" (4: 393) Fredrick, you got it! As you note, good will is good in itself according to Kant - without anything qualifying it or being added to it. We cannot assess the good will by reviewing the outcome of actions, for Kant.
1. What is the only thing good without qualification? pp. pp. 4:393 - Albritton
According to Kant, the only thing that is good without qualification is good will. An excerpt from the text says that "unless a good will is present to correct and make generally purposivei their influence on the mind, and with it also the whole principle for acting; not to mention that a rational impartial spectator can nevermore take any delight in the sight of the uninterrupted prosperity of a being adorned with no feature of a pure and good will, and that a good will thus appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of the worthiness to be happy" (Kant, 4:393). In layman's terms, good will is good all on its own and it does not require any other thing for it to be good. Actions driven by good will generally have a better outcome because they were motivated by an attitude stemming from goodness. Ariele, excellent work! As you note the answer here is 'good will'. Kant would suggest that ALL of traits that we often note as being morally good or only so if the person who has them also possesses a good will. Take the example of a leader who can influence million of people. Is that good? Kant would likely say, it is neither good nor bad in itself. It all simply depends on whether the leader possesses a good will or not.
5. Why would the good will be good even if it were ineffectual? pp. 4:394 - Bermundez-Martinez
Goodwill does not require effectiveness or efficiency to be good. It is guaranteed without any qualification. According to Kant goodwill is not define by whether is achieved or not. It is good for it is own sake. Felix, very good work. The key idea here is that the good will is good because of what it is and not because of what it does or brings about. This is very different than Mill's utilitarianism which measures the worth of an action according to the good outcomes or consequences that the action brings about.
18. What sort of law must the will desire if the motivation is to be strictly free of consequences? pp. 4:402 - Perry
Jeannine, excellent work! For Kant, the moral law must be universal and would apply to the person acting as well as everyone else. Kant thinks that once people start to act from inclination or a concern for the consequences then they will be bound to exercise maxims that apply to some and not others.
8. What is the true function of reason? pp. 4:396 - Dannenberger
Kant believes that happiness tends to come as a natural instinct where reason doesn't need to come into play. Therefore, according to Kant, the true function of reason is "to produce a will that is good" (4:396). It can't be tailored to just a will that is good but that it needs to be "the highest good" (4:396). Michelle, you got it! Kant thinks, as you note, that the true function of reason is to produce a will which is good. For Kant reason serves the purpose of allowing morality to exist at all. Kant would contrast this with a utilitarian view that focuses on the consequences or upon happiness. Kant sees this focus as often antithetical to reason and a process that takes us away from morality and not toward it.
19. Explain why Kant thinks that the reason lying is wrong is not because it is not prudent. pp. 4:402-403 - Smith
Kant explains a situation where he asks himself if telling a lie to get him out of some situation would be wrong. One of the problems with this choice (a maxi allowing him to lie for his personal convenience) is that it may save him some trouble now, but might have consequences later. That makes is imprudent to lie. However, that is not why the lie would be wrong. If you are doing something just to avoid consequences then the act is based on outside forces and influences instead of from internal will or internal moral law that wouldn't change no matter what the outside choices and consequences are. He states that a good will choice (maxim) is one that can be universalized. If you applied that to the lie you would be saying everyone can and will lie anytime it is convenient for them. Therefore, no ones word can be trusted. This is obviously not a moral good and so to lie, whether or not it is prudent, whether or not there are any consequences, is wrong. Samantha, excellent analysis as well as separating the idea of something being imprudent and it being wrong! Kant suggests that we often not very good at predicting the future or the results of our actions and that often lying merely creates more problems than it solves and hence is not a very prudent course of action. Prudent:showing thought and care for the future
11. Kant says that to preserve one's life is a duty. What problem does he see with this? pp. 4:397-398 - Hodges
Kant felt that moral duties and good will, went hand in hand. He felt that motives determined whether or not an act could be considered moral. He did, however, think that a self-interested purpose was not a moral cause. Herein lies the problem with the statement that to preserve one's life is a duty. He gave a good example of this with an illustration of a shop keeper, "it certainly conforms with duty that a shop keeper not overcharge his inexperienced customer..."1. Kant thought that this action it's possible this could be occurring in order to keep a good reputation, not out of love for humanity. That makes it impossible to assume that the cause would or would not be considered moral. Preserving your life is a duty. Much like the shopkeeper, there is a reason behind why someone would chose to preserve their life. Kant felt that most people chose to do so out of selfish reasons, to protect themselves, not solely out of a sense of duty. He discussed an example of when this could be considered a moral action from duty. If a person is depressed, no longer loving life, wanted to end it, but preserved his life, and did not do so from the cause of "inclination or fear, but from duty; then his maxim has a moral content"2. Arjan, excellent analysis! The primary problem here is that most people preserve their life because of inclination. We choose to keep living because we are inclined to do so, not because we are abiding by a duty to do so. But then if Kant is correct about only acts that are motivated by duty having moral worth then that would mean people preserving their life will rarely, almost never, have moral worth.
13. What is required in order for an act to have moral worth? pp. 4:397-399 - Jefferson AND Vick
Kant said that, in order for an act to have moral worth, human action has to be stimulated by something for duty and only that. For a person to do a moral act is something you cannot teach. It is wired, imbedded in you. People do moral acts not because it could improve self-worth or result in public recognition. They do it because they consider it to be the right thing to do, even if it may be dangerous or cause discomfort. It is an act of moral worth. Kant gave a great example of this when he said, "By contrast, to preserve one's life is one's duty, and besides everyone has an immediate inclination to do so" (pg. 4:397). I agree with Kant. We can look at the deadly mass shooting in California last week, where everyday citizens were helping people who were injured not because they were paid to do so, like law enforcement. But because that was the moral thing to do as humans, their concern was getting those people to safety. Helping to preserve the life of others but possibly sacrifice your own is an act of moral worth. Gregory, excellent work! The key idea here is that in order for an action to have moral worth it must be motivated or driven by a concern for duty and only duty - no exceptions. For Kant, actions motivated by others concerns (even concerns like an emotional empathy for others) will lack moral worth. For instance, consider the classic example of helping the old lady cross the street. Even that act will only have moral worth for Kant if the person does it strictly because they are doing it from duty . If they do it because they feel sorry for old lady, or just want to help, or just don't want to see another person hurt the act for Kant might lead to good consequences but it will not have moral worth.
14. Why does Kant say that his view makes sense of the scriptural commandment to love one's neighbor and one's enemy? pp. 4:399 - Knollenberg AND Traore
Kant talks about the difficulty of doing something that goes against our feelings because it is the right thing to do. He justifies his view of loving one's neighbor and enemy by using the scriptural commandment. His view is that loving an enemy is an emotional struggle, but it is the right thing to do. He also says that it would be difficult to be inclined to love our enemies, but we should love them out of duty and ignore our emotions. He propagates the notion of loving our enemies and our neighbors out of duty and obligation to develop his argument that certain aspects of morality are rooted in duty or obligation and not only on emotions. People are inclined to do something they enjoy but Kant suggests that one needs to do actions that he or she does not enjoy provided they are right. Sean, very good work. Kant argues that we will be inclined to hate our enemies, that is why they are enemies. So the only hope we might have to love our enemies is to act toward them because of duty and not inclination.
3. Why are moderation, self-control, and sober reflection not unconditionally good? pp. 4:393-394 - Bankes
Moderation, self-control, and sober reflections are all great attributes that one may possess. People can use these attributes to do good things, however, these attributes can also be used in a negative manner to do bad things. For the simple fact that these attributes can be used in a negative manner for bad things, they can not unconditionally be good. The only thing that can be unconditionally good is good will. As Kant stated, "For without principles of a good will they can become most evil, and the cold blood of a scoundrel makes him not only far more dangerous, but also immediately more loathsome in our eyes than he would have been taken to be without it." (Kant, p. 4:394) Vanessa, excellent work! Kant would be skeptical with any trait being unconditionally good. The 'problem' with these traits is that they can clearly be used for ill will if the person who has them lacks a good motive. Cleverness, for instance, can be used for good or evil. And in fact, for instance, we would all prefer a person who intends to be a terrorist to be dim witted rather than clever.
9. In order to clearly illuminate the concept of duty, which kind of acts does Kant focus upon? pp. 4:397 - Elliott
Motivated by duty and not just acting in accordance to it
15. What does it mean to act on a purely formal, a priori, principle of volition? pp. 4:400 - Lane
Rachel, very good work with a tougher question for the week. The a priori aspect here is referring to idea of knowledge by 'reason alone' without any appeal to the empirical five senses. Kant thought that our moral knowledge was something that we knew without appealing to knowledge gleaned from our sight, hearing, taste, feel, or smell. And a principle of volition is one that induces our will to act and interact with the world.
17. What is a maxim? pp. 4:400-401 - Ovwielefuoma
The maxim of an action is referred to as the agent's intention or a principle of action that one gives to oneself. This is one area where the language Kant uses could have been stated in much easier terms to get to the same idea. A maxim generally speaking is simply a rule of conduct that a person follows. All of us have dozens of maxims that we use to navigate the world everyday. Even something as simple as a rule saying that you ought to put clothes on before you leave the house is a maxim.
10. Explain the example of the shop keeper. What is Kant trying to demonstrate? pp. 4:397 - Higgins
The shop keeper example is showing that when it is the job or duty of a person to do the right or what we would think the moral thing of, for example, charging everyone the same price for a service or product, it can be impossible to tell if the person is doing this out of good will or if it the person feels it is his/her duty to do so. key idea here is the difference between acting from duty and merely acting according to duty. The shopkeeper appears to act morally but his actions are motivated by profit -not duty- and as such Kant would say his actions have no moral worth. This is one area where we see a big difference between Kant and Mill. The shopkeeper only acts according to duty -not from duty- and he does this for the purpose of profit and a future customer base. Notice how this is very different than Mill. Mill was ultimately focused on the consequences or outcomes of action and alternatively Kant is concerned with the motive of action - irrespective of the action's outcome.
12. Kant says that to help others where one can is a duty. What problem does he see with this? pp. 4:398 - Hollingsworth
There is much controversy around our duties as human beings. Morality is not only subjective but also circumstantial and our obligation to do things may be influenced by guilt. Kant says that to help others where one can is a duty. The problem he sees with this is as humans, we often help people because we feel inclined and not necessarily because we are acting from duty. In other words, some people may do things because it is their good nature to do so, while others may do the right thing from the recognition that it is the right thing to do or perhaps that their motive to do something is contingent upon the desired end result. Furthermore, Kant also believes that actions done from our sense of duty have moral worth (Kant, 2012, p.398). Julia, you got it! The major problem for Kant here is that most times when a person helps another it is done because of some inclination and not because a person is acting from duty. This is a problem for Kant because he thinks that only actions done from a sense of duty have moral worth. So say I help an elderly lady cross the street because I am inclined not to see her hit by a bus. Most people would say that my action has moral worth. After all, I went out of my way to help a fellow human being with no expectation of reward other than not seeing a person badly hurt or killed. But Kant would say no it does not unless my helping was from a sense of duty. Even if I do the action with no sense of personal gain the action would still have no moral worth for Kant UNLESS I do the action strictly because it is my duty to do so.
7. What tends to happen when a rational person devotes herself to using her reason to achieve happiness? pp. 4:395-396 - Buss
When a rational person tries to use reason to achieve happiness it seems that they normally get further away from it. "In actual fact, we do find that the more a cultivated reason engages with the purpose of enjoying life and with happiness, so much the further does a human being stray from true contentment".(4:395) It works better to try to find happiness by using our more instinctual qualities than reason. Kant states that it is just a more reliable path to happiness. Reason is supposed to be used to "influence the will" for the good of things not to get something good out of something else. (4:396) Will doesn't always have to be for the entire good of anything, it is an unconditional thing where as happiness always comes with conditions. Shelby, excellent work! Kant does not think that acting with reason often provides happiness to the person. Kant sees a duel effect here. As a person becomes more rational they are drawn toward acting from a good will and this leads to engage in actions with moral worth. But at the same time it could likely lead them away from happiness. This is for a number of reasons but one clear one is that often people are just very bad at using reason to predict what will actually make them happy. So we get less happy but more moral when we are directed by reason. Kant suggests that following inclination is often a more effective means to become happy than following reason.
