In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant seeks to establish and define the supreme principle of morality. But his account of this moral principle in Section 2 leaves one feeling disheartened rather than feeling closer to being able to employ and achieve morality.
The moral law is one that can be applied universally, and therefore does not take into account experience, or circumstance--it is not situational. An act is to be judged moral through its intentions and not any of its consequences. In order for an action to be truly moral, its maxim must be solely based on the command of duty. He places morality on such a high pedestal admitting that “most of our actions are in conformity with duty” but when we examine their intentions we find that duty is not the only source driving the action, and therefore cannot be defined as moral (4:407-408).
He urges us not to rely on examples to understand morality because you cannot find “a single case in which the maxim of an action otherwise in conformity with duty rested simply on moral grounds and on the representation of one’s duty,” meaning that there is not one case where there is not some sort of egotistic driving force behind an action (Kant 4:407). Not only is this a negative view of human nature, but also who is he to judge every persons intentions? If a person finds a cell phone and returns it to the owner, refusing any compensation, does he have any selfish intentions or aspirations? And even if this person did accept compensation, who is to say that it was a driving force behind his decision to return the phone? Kant says that “imitation has no place at all in matters of morality,” but doesn’t this imitation of good and moral actions help enforce this tendency towards a moral principle (4:409)?
Kant creates this notion of morality that makes it near impossible for us to behave morally, or even recognize moral actions are being preformed. By having morality rest solely on reason and not experience, he might explain the principle of morality but at no point explains how we can come closer to reaching it. What good is understanding morality if we do not have the capacity of achieving it?
5 comments:
Laura, I understand your argument but I think we must consider that Kant had the idea of the “kingdom of ends” on his mind while writing these ideas. Remember that the “kingdom of ends” is a group of rational beings with the same maxims. Kant would say that an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law. This is where the kingdom of ends comes into play. A group of rational and free beings is one in which creates, gives, and governs by its own moral law. This kingdom prescribes its own moral law by definition. This is what makes this community moral. If we keep this ideal in mind, then Kant believes that morality is something that absolutely can and should be achieved.
I completely agree that Kant makes it nearly impossible for a human being to achieve morality. He basically makes it nearly impossible for humans to do anything good at all. I also feel that Kant is wrong in saying that egoistic motives are what drive the actions of all individuals. Overall, I think that Kant makes a lot of generalizations without considering the exceptions to these generalizations. Your cell phone example presents a perfect counterargument to Kant’s theories. I believe that there are many people who simply do good things because they are good people and many of their actions in helping others happen subconsciously.
It is imperative for us to follow a particular directive, or maxim to achieve complete morality. It is extremely difficult, but not impossible to achieve morality—we must overcome our inclinations and stay true to the “kingdom of ends.” By society as a whole endorsing our own moral law goodness and virtue is attainable.
It is imperative for us to follow a particular directive, or maxim to achieve complete morality. It is extremely difficult, but not impossible to achieve morality—we must overcome our inclinations and stay true to the “kingdom of ends.” By society as a whole endorsing our own moral law goodness and virtue is attainable.
Concerning the claim that Kant makes it nearly impossible for us to achieve morality, let alone recognize moral actions, I completely agree with you, Laura. Kant does distinguish the fact that morality rests on reason and not experience, but the problem is with, “when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principle, which are not seen” (4:407). It is with this claim that makes me wonder how are we able to know what someone “inner principle” is if we cannot see it. Going back to the example you used with the cell phone, even though the person returns the cell phone whether they expected compensation or not, we will never know if they are moral. With Kant’s concept of an “inner principle” deciding if our actions are moral, he makes it impossible to even be certain if one’s actions are moral actions.
Post a Comment