In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant is instituting the supreme principles of morality. The groundwork for the metaphysics of morals is the foundation in which Kant attempts to prove such principles that morality exists. Morality is a principle that pertains to the behavior of rational beings. Kant believes this principle is knowledge of pure judgments about morality for which all ethics exist. The judgments about morality cannot be based on experience but instead they should be free of the realistic state. Our actions are derived from other universal principles.
Section 1 is entitled the Transition from the ordinary rational knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical. Kant intends to “proceed analytically from ordinary knowledge to a determination of the supreme principle.” When rationalizing the knowledge of morality we must analyze the subject in its original form but be also analyze the unseen principals to determine the supreme principle. Kant starts his argument that the only thing that qualifies as absolute moral virtue is “good will.” It is absolutely free in every aspect because no one knows what its effects are or accomplishments and we cannot reduce from its value. To Kant “good will” is discovering the principle of the virtuous person. To do this one must concentrate on the virtuous person’s actions. Kant knows there must be a type of motivation for the virtuous person to perform “good will” actions.
Kant identifies three types of motivation for the actions. The first of the motivations is duty; the action performed should be done only because it is morally right. Secondly, there is an immediate inclination because there is an enjoyment from performing the certain action. The last of the three types of motivation is the instrumental inclination, and this action is performed because there is some ultimate independent end. Ultimately, Kant determines the person who performs a “good will” action in respect to the moral law will have a unique moral worth.
Section 1 is entitled the Transition from the ordinary rational knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical. Kant intends to “proceed analytically from ordinary knowledge to a determination of the supreme principle.” When rationalizing the knowledge of morality we must analyze the subject in its original form but be also analyze the unseen principals to determine the supreme principle. Kant starts his argument that the only thing that qualifies as absolute moral virtue is “good will.” It is absolutely free in every aspect because no one knows what its effects are or accomplishments and we cannot reduce from its value. To Kant “good will” is discovering the principle of the virtuous person. To do this one must concentrate on the virtuous person’s actions. Kant knows there must be a type of motivation for the virtuous person to perform “good will” actions.
Kant identifies three types of motivation for the actions. The first of the motivations is duty; the action performed should be done only because it is morally right. Secondly, there is an immediate inclination because there is an enjoyment from performing the certain action. The last of the three types of motivation is the instrumental inclination, and this action is performed because there is some ultimate independent end. Ultimately, Kant determines the person who performs a “good will” action in respect to the moral law will have a unique moral worth.
In section two of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moral, Kant presents his theory of practical reasoning. He highlights part of the principles of practical reason are moral laws, “present the practical faculty of reason from its universal rules of determination to the point where the concept of duty springs from it.” Kant distinguishes the laws of practical reason as two separate imperatives. The hypothetical imperative demands performance of an action for an ultimate end. However, the categorical imperative unconditionally demands performance of an action for itself. There is a significant difference between the two types of imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives require following the laws of another for an ultimate end and categorical imperatives are independent of ultimate end.
Kant provides several different formulations in which the categorical imperative can be expressed. There are three important formulations: Formula of Humanity, Formula of the Kingdom of Ends, and the Formula of the Universal Law. The Formula of the Universal Law is the most important of the three formulations. It can be used to create a “contradiction test” for all possible maxims of actions. Kant states “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If a maxim does not pass the test then we are obligated to not act on this maxim. However if the maxim does pass the test then we are allowed to act on this maxim. In order to identify which actions are morally allowed Kant proposes a categorical imperative experiment. First the maxim of action should be formulated. The maxim is a combination of an action and a purpose for which that action is performed. Then a corresponding formula is formulated, the “law of nature” is used to simplify the individual maxim. Finally, after imagining a world in which this “law” will be insinuated, one must determine if one could will the action in this state.
Kant theorizes a contradiction of his formula would proceed. As a result of this contradiction, Kant demonstrates a false promise is morally impermissible but if the maxim does pass the categorical test then the action is morally permissible. He mentions two aspects of a contradiction: a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in the will. The maxims that cause the contradiction in conception demonstrate that we have perfect duties to ourselves and others. While those maxims that cause the contradiction in the will demonstrate we have imperfect duties to ourselves and others.
In section III of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Kant transitions from the Metaphysics of Morals to critiquing practical reason. Section III differs from sections I and II because Kant begins to show how moral law is applied to our everyday lives. Kant classifies freedom and necessity. According to Kant freedom of will and necessity are both used when performing an action based on practical reason “…freedom would be the property of this causality that makes it effective independent of any determination of alien causes...” He initiates his arguments as such there are two types of freedoms present, the negative freedom and positive freedom. The positive freedom is an uncaused cause whereas the negative freedom is believed to be by an alien cause. In order to be positively free the will must be governed by moral laws so for Kant “a free will and a will subject to moral laws are one and the same.” There is a rational correlation between freedom and morality. Kant states if we are rational human beings then we are compelled to act under the idea of freedom. Our actions are free and are not compelled by outside idea “…every rational being who has a will also the idea of freedom, under which only such a being can act…” When performing an act we must be negatively free because the negatively free will must lead to the positively free will, it sets up the premises for the act. If we are rational then we must have a will. Kant concludes that a rational will and a categorical imperative will are equivalent.So to help the common person differentiate between the two he develops two worlds. There is the rational world and the empirical world. The empirical world is the world of appearances where we follow the laws of nature for the outcome of our actions. The world of “as is” we view ourselves as subject to the laws which are based only on reason and are independent of nature.
Kant provides several different formulations in which the categorical imperative can be expressed. There are three important formulations: Formula of Humanity, Formula of the Kingdom of Ends, and the Formula of the Universal Law. The Formula of the Universal Law is the most important of the three formulations. It can be used to create a “contradiction test” for all possible maxims of actions. Kant states “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If a maxim does not pass the test then we are obligated to not act on this maxim. However if the maxim does pass the test then we are allowed to act on this maxim. In order to identify which actions are morally allowed Kant proposes a categorical imperative experiment. First the maxim of action should be formulated. The maxim is a combination of an action and a purpose for which that action is performed. Then a corresponding formula is formulated, the “law of nature” is used to simplify the individual maxim. Finally, after imagining a world in which this “law” will be insinuated, one must determine if one could will the action in this state.
Kant theorizes a contradiction of his formula would proceed. As a result of this contradiction, Kant demonstrates a false promise is morally impermissible but if the maxim does pass the categorical test then the action is morally permissible. He mentions two aspects of a contradiction: a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in the will. The maxims that cause the contradiction in conception demonstrate that we have perfect duties to ourselves and others. While those maxims that cause the contradiction in the will demonstrate we have imperfect duties to ourselves and others.
In section III of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Kant transitions from the Metaphysics of Morals to critiquing practical reason. Section III differs from sections I and II because Kant begins to show how moral law is applied to our everyday lives. Kant classifies freedom and necessity. According to Kant freedom of will and necessity are both used when performing an action based on practical reason “…freedom would be the property of this causality that makes it effective independent of any determination of alien causes...” He initiates his arguments as such there are two types of freedoms present, the negative freedom and positive freedom. The positive freedom is an uncaused cause whereas the negative freedom is believed to be by an alien cause. In order to be positively free the will must be governed by moral laws so for Kant “a free will and a will subject to moral laws are one and the same.” There is a rational correlation between freedom and morality. Kant states if we are rational human beings then we are compelled to act under the idea of freedom. Our actions are free and are not compelled by outside idea “…every rational being who has a will also the idea of freedom, under which only such a being can act…” When performing an act we must be negatively free because the negatively free will must lead to the positively free will, it sets up the premises for the act. If we are rational then we must have a will. Kant concludes that a rational will and a categorical imperative will are equivalent.So to help the common person differentiate between the two he develops two worlds. There is the rational world and the empirical world. The empirical world is the world of appearances where we follow the laws of nature for the outcome of our actions. The world of “as is” we view ourselves as subject to the laws which are based only on reason and are independent of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment