Kant believes that we should do our duty because it is our duty to do it! But he doesn’t think that it’s morally a good action if you perform a moral action out of desire for the good consequence, because our interest to do so isn’t a moral action. We shouldn’t do our duty because of the consequences of doing it we should do it for duty itself, as Kant says duty is good in it self.
Kant also acknowledged that happiness is good, if it comes as a reward for acting through good will.
Utilitarian ethics is some thing that Kant theory directly disagrees with. Utilitarian would for instance say its ok to lie if in the result of lying greater happiness is caused, but Kant would say that to lie would be wrong no matter what.
Kant believed that human action that it’s done for the sake of duty is good. For example Kant said “if I give to a beggar because duty demands it, then I’m good for doing so.”
For Kant people are not moral for the sake of love, they are moral for the sake of duty. Kant argued that duty and reason can help to guide people’s emotions, so that they are not ruled by them.
For Kant, being good means having a good will. A good will is when a person does his duty for the sake of duty alone, he does his duty because it’s right, and for no other reason.
At the time Kant’s approach was a highly original and contemporary way of thinking. He laid out the first principles of morality which were independent of self interest and showed his belief that a good man was one that followed duty and ignored personal feelings. There were many positive aspects that appealed to people when making moral choices.
(b) “Kant’s theory is cold and unattractive” discuss
For example you are a soldier in your war torn homeland. In battle it is your duty to kill the opponent however you knew this particular soldier before the outbreak of fighting and realise that he has a wife and children to support. The consequences of pulling the trigger are at least worth considering.
The method above is called the universalisability principle and it was this that allowed Kant to differentiate between moral actions and immoral actions, it tackles one of the arguments which Utilitarianism could not complete, namely that it judges whether a person is making a good action by the cause not by the outcome.
Kant’s approach is valuable in that it succeeds in areas where other ethical programmes have failed. Justice is safeguarded, man has intrinsic worth and duty is distinguished from inclination and freedom is essential all in an easy to use package. However the major error arises from its deonlontological nature as consequences are regarded as worthless and also from the difference of duties.
Take for example a desire to steal for personal gain, if everybody took everything they wanted then nobody would own anything without the risk of it soon being taken. This saying goes against itself so it cannot be universalised, therefore it should not be carried out. The advantage of this technique of working out right from wrong is that its non-consequentialist and therefore it is quite quick and easy to calculate as there are no exceptions. However a large error is that completely ignoring the outcomes of our actions seems slightly irresponsible as outcomes are of at least some importance when arriving at a moral decision however slightly hard they are to calculate.
In Utilitarianism an act could be believed to be good even if the intentions were bad e.g. out of spite I push someone over but as a result a passing car misses them. This action is good because it saved a life even though intentions were bad. This is one of the attractions as Justice is safeguarded.
Kant’s theory distinguishes acts done from inclination and obligation. Inclination being a shallow personal action and obligation is more of an action of deep duty. For example I have promised my parents that I will baby-sit for them but I get invited to a party that takes place on the same evening where I would much rather spend my Saturday night. Acting as a moral person I would stay in and look after my baby brother doing my duty. I am ignoring my practical will and instead I choose my logical (commonsense) will.
Kant argued that a person is only acting morally when they hold back their feelings and stick to their duty. This then raises the question why on some occasions have I gone to the party and arranged another baby sitter, does this make me completely immoral and therefore an irrational person? Utilitarian ethics would allow me to go providing I found another babysitter as then everyone would be happy. It has been suggested that Kent’s approach is perhaps too demanding and insensitive to the needs of others.
