The will Kant says, is the movement of acting according to a law. When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our action is often beyond our control and the morality of our actions cannot depend on their outcome. What we can control however is the will behind these actions. That is we can will to act according to one law rather than another. The morality of an action therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it and not the consequences associated with it. According to Kant the only thing that is good without reason is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it produces.
Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for the wrong purposes Kant argues, and therefore cannot be “intrinsically” good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worth of happiness Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good.
Goodness cannot come from acting on impulse. It can only come from doing an action in a certain way. We might be tempted to think that some movements that make actions good and have a positive goal -to make people happy - are then moral. But this is not so Kant says if the act is not done with the right motive. No outcome should we achieve it, can be unconditionally good. Fortune can be misused, what we thought may be good might actually be harmful! Hoping to achieve some particular end no matter how beneficial it may seem, is not purely good. It is not the effect or even the intended effect that shows moral character on an action. This statement proves what I have explained above.” could be brought about through other causes and would not require the will of the rational being, while the highest and unconditional good can be found in only such a will."
Having worked out that our actions cannot be moral on the basis of some goal but rather in the motive for which they are done, Kant now establishes a categorical as opposed to hypothetical imperative which serves as a golden rule for moral action. The quote from a philosophy web page develops the Categorical Imperative, which make us act upon an action in all situations:
"An action done from duty does not have its moral worth in the purpose which is to be achieved through it but in the maxim by which it is determined. Its moral value, therefore, does not depend on the reality of the object of the action but merely on the principle of volition y which the action is done."
From this we can develop Kant's account of the categorical imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Utilitarianism is a theory that maintains that pleasure/happiness is the only intrinsic good, and that whatever act, choice etc. that any one person makes is to follow the maxim that it should create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I will now critically asses Kant’s claims.
At the base of Kant’s argument is his categorical imperative, which is a set of rules that outline "that only the good will, a will to act out of a sense of duty, has unqualified moral worth.” The categorical imperative simply, is this: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." And that we should never treat anyone as a means to an end.
According to Kantian ethics there are universal moral laws, which we must follow. There are many problems with this, and first I feel that Kant is trying to place a one-dimensional theory of ethics on a three-dimensional world full of unexpected incidents. Humans have proven time and time again to be extremely unpredictable and the nature of the earth doesn't help either. By the nature of the earth I mean the unexpected, unexplained happenings that occur and do not surprise us. Kant's theory is too tight for us to adopt. It is a good idea with good intentions but it seems as though his Christian background had too much of an affect on him. It is unrealistic and cannot work with society and our modern day life, because sometimes we need to lie, and sometimes we need to kill.
Another problem with Kant's theory is that it not only fails to solve some of the tough problems we face, it creates more problems. Take this situation for example, perhaps I want to kill Mr Jennings, I knock on Mrs Jennings door and demand to know where Mr Jennings is. Mrs Jennings can either lie and say she doesn't know (even though she knows very well that Mr Jennings is hiding in his bedroom) or she can tell the truth and allow Me to murder Mr Jennings. Under Kant's theory Mrs Jennings must tell the truth which is totally wrong obvious sense! but also, if Mrs Jennings could lie to allow me to calm down until I am thinking rationally and able to discuss the problem with Mr Jennings, then the murder could be avoided altogether. If Mrs Jennings follows Kant's laws then he creates more problems, like dealing with a murder, the guilt, the loss of Mr Jennings etc. I don't see and others agree, how this really solves any problem, it really is just a code of behaviour to live by and it seems like a total mistake to respond to life's obstacles!
The central theme in Kant's argument is that someone’s intentions out rule the consequences that result from any actions.
As I have shown from the case above. The trolley situation for example, where the brakes stop functioning and the only way out is to either kill five workers on the track or one to the side. Kant’s answer would be not to steer away from the five workers because it would be unfair to use the one to the side as a means to save the others' lives. This is a tough case no matter how you look at it. The other view seems like a better answer, sacrifice one for the greater number, but regardless of how you look at it, this case is no win. The main problem with Kant’s ideas is that it deals with intentions, and while they are important in distinguishing one's actions, they are not the only factor in question when placed with life's dilemmas.
