In the first section of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant begins his argument by indicating that there is absolutely nothing that “can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (Kant 7). Unlike Aristotle (and the Ancient Greeks in general), Kant doesn’t think that any virtues (he calls them temperaments or character qualities) are good alone. Wealth, power, influence, or good fortune are also not good alone. All of these things require good will behind them as a qualification for judging them good. It is how such things are used that makes them good; and “unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind” and to keep these things in check with their proper and good purpose, then they cannot be good. Therefore, good will is an essential qualification for such things to be good, and good will is the only thing that can be considered good without any other qualifications. As Kant says, these things have “no intrinsic unconditional worth, but… always presuppose… a good will” (7).
However, Kant goes one step further and says that because a good will is the only thing that is good in itself, it is therefore also good because it is simply good in and of itself and not because it necessary affects anything else or accomplishes anything beyond being good in and of itself. He says, “… it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself” (7). This being established leads us to a tricky point. If just possessing a good will is good, and the good will is good itself without ever needing to consider its effects or accomplishments, then the person with a good will may never use his good will to accomplish anything and still be considered good. Kant says, “… if with the greatest effort, it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain,… yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself” (8). This seems logical. It is certainly a logical conclusion. However, let’s think of it a bit differently. Say you were given the chance to own the Hope Diamond. With a few provisos. Under no conditions were you permitted to sell it, set it for wearing, or donate it to a museum. You were allowed to enjoy its beauty privately, but you would never be allowed to show it to anyone else. Would you want it? Wouldn’t we say that the beauty of the diamond is in the eye of the beholder? What if there weren’t any beholders? No one would see it and no one would ever know you had it.
4 comments:
I agree with what you're saying--that is--in order for Aristotle's requirements for happiness to be good we must have a good will or else things such as wealth and possessions may be used for the wrong purposes. However, as for your Hope Diamond situation, is that not similar to the paradox, 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'. The difference here I feel is that unlike Aristotle, where only others can judge us to be happy, with Kant it is not the same. If we know we have a good will, then that seems to be good enough, rather, Aristotle says that we need others to tell us that we're happy or else we're not really happy.
When you speak about the will being good in itself you leave out one major component of good will, and what makes it good in itself. Kant states, “To produce a will good in itself reason was absolutely necessary” (Kant, 9). While the will is good through its willing, and subsequently good in itself, It is reason which determines how the will must act in regards to moral law. Additionally, I agree with mike when he says that having good will is something that does not rely on the confirmation of others, but is rather a principle that relies exclusively on the individual agent.
I do not think that it matters to Kant that the person’s good will accomplishes anything. Good will is not determined by the outcomes it accomplishes. If a person were to focus on the results, then the person is not focusing on the good for the sake of the good, but is instead focusing on the good for the sake of a preferred ending. Other’s perceptions have no effect on whether or not a person has good will, because the good will can only be determined by the will itself and that it is in accordance with its own value.
I too understand your use of the diamond analogy however I don't think you can apply that to this situation. Why do people put value on diamonds? Because they are rare, expensive, and a symbol of status. You wouldn't want the diamond under your stated provisos because we desire the diamond for the outcome it provides (money and status). A good will doesn't necessarily bring about positive results but it is good because of its own nature and therefore even if it does nothing it is still good. The diamond is only good as long as we can show it off.
Post a Comment