Kant next addresses what kind of motivation comprises a good will. He distinguishes acting out of duty from acting out of inclination. By inclination, Kant is referring to desire in the sense of human being’s impulse and passion. Thus, to Kant, duty is, “subjective pure respect for the practical law.” To act from duty is to act out of respect for the moral law. The distinction between acting out of a sense of duty (from a good will) and acting out of an urge to satisfy our inclinations is illustrated by Kant’s two types of maxims: hypothetical and categorical.
The hypothetical imperative says: “If you want X, then you ought to do Y,” while the categorical imperative says: “You ought to act in accordance with law Z.” Kant focuses on the categorical.
The first version of Kant’s categorical imperative states that people should not make special rules for their own conduct. Act only on that maxim that one can, at the same time, will to be a universal law. If an individual thinks a certain action is correct, then it should be correct for everyone under the same circumstances, not just for the one person. Therefore, if one is impartial, that person is acting on the idea that it is irrational to prefer one’s self to others; an individual is no better than anyone else is. When someone acts selfishly, that person is making themselves an exception; yet the same person also thinks that the general rule should hold for others (or most of the time), "we actually acknowledge the validity of the categorical imperative."
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is, “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only.” Kant is saying do not treat people as if they were mere objects, existing only to serve your own ends. They should be treated as if their goals and desires are just as important as yours. If a person makes other people as well as themselves their ends, then Kant believes that people will treat others impartially, with dignity, and respect out of people’s duty to reason itself. On the other hand, society makes it imperative that, in order to achieve any of the ends that citizens pursue, the populace must in some way treat other persons as means. Kant answers that it is only permissible to use them as long as they have a genuine choice of whether to help attain one’s personal ends.
Autonomy is a part of being free; one's decisions and actions really are one's own. Autonomy is a right (not a mere permission) to make certain personal decisions without undue interference from others. Kant argues that persons are ends in themselves because they possess a rational will. But a rational will manifests itself in decisions and actions, and consequently the respect due to a person requires autonomy. For Kant, one is autonomous because one acts morally or out of duty. The moral agent acts on the basis of self-imposed categorical imperatives which are the result of one’s mind insofar as it is based on reason.
My opinions of Kantian ethics are put forward in a few questions. To begin with, it does not make sense that actions could be judged solely on motives. Should it not also follow that consequences are important? Kant argues, for example, that one ought to keep promises because, otherwise, promises do not mean anything. Is that not, in some way, looking at the consequences? Is there not something wrong with saying that morality should ever be concerned with the consequences? Is motivation all that ultimately matters? Subsequently, Kant does not provide any standards for the level of specificity of the maxim. Thus, may a person be able to “universalize” maxims that are clearly immoral as long as one can never be in the position of the person harmed? What about Kant’s example of promises? One could agree that he or she cannot universalize breaking promises whenever it is to the promise-giver’s advantage to do so, but what about when an individual could universalize the maxim that whenever one can save a life of another by breaking a promise then should one do so? As a final point, Kant's theory does not protect against a completely distorted view of the world or personal sincerely held prejudices. Does it mean that if someone held racism, sexism, or any other bigotry that person could justify his or her view of the world as moral and ethical as long as that individual remained narrow-minded?
-Works Cited-
John Arthur. Morality and Moral Controversies Readings in Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Seventh Edition. “The Fundamentals of the Metaphysics of Morals”
Immanuel Kant. Pp. 56-65.
