Kant Find One

In this section of Groundwork, Kant continues his search for a law that can determine the will without reference to any expected effect—so the will can be called absolutely good without qualification. To find this law, Kant has stripped the will of any urge or compulsion that would come to light via the adherence of any particular law. Therefore, there are no developed/underlying principles, but the universal conformity of actions to serve as a societal standard. Kant believes that your actions should have the ability to be seen as a universal law, and conformity to the universal “serves the will as principle and must so serve it if duty is not to be a vain delusion and a chimerical concept.” (Groundwork, 14) By practicing conformity, man solidifies various principles/maxims that are perceived as good duties/laws. Kant emphasizes that humankind has always lived by this theory of ordinary reason and to prove it he poses this question. “When I am in distress may make a promise with the intention of not keeping it?” (Groundwork, 14) In other words would it be acceptable to make a lying promise in times of difficulty. Kant continues by discussing the two implications of this question that are: if making a false promise corresponds with prudence or duty. Prudence is the act of showing care and thought for the future and it plays a role in telling a false lie. Yet telling a false lie due to prudence is not clever because we will never know the full consequences of the lie. Kant states “even with all my supposed cunning; loss in confidence in me might prove to be far more disadvantageous than the misfortune which I now try to avoid.” (Groundwork, 14) The most sensible way to act would be through a universal maxim and not promise anything without intending to keep it. Kant then points out that there is a schism between truthfulness from duty and truthfulness from fear of disadvantageous consequences. Basically, truthfulness from duty is that the action contains a law for us, while in the latter one must weigh the ramifications that are connected with the action. Another keynote difference between them is that one can abandon the maxim of prudence.

Kant also believes that this question could be answered if the lying promise could hold as a universal not just for one person, but for others as well. Henceforth, can everyone make a promise they cannot keep? However a lying promise could not work for all because no one would be believed, and if someone did believe you they would pay you back in “like coin.” Kant stresses that one’s maxim should have the ability become a universal law, and if not it should be rejected—due to the fact that it would not hold as a possible legislation for universal law. By conforming to this universal, acting respectfully toward the practical law, and expunge our desires we define our duties. And we all know that duty is worth more than all-else. Kant then explores the difference between practical judgment and theoretical judgment and comes to the conclusion—wherein he opines that practical judgment is more favorable. Because, practical judgment is more certain than the thoughts of any philosopher.

In summation, Kant believes that ordinary human reason should leave its sphere and seek philosophy. He also stresses that peace is only attainable via thorough critical examination of our reason.