What does Kant mean when he says that an action has moral worth only if it is done 'from the motive of duty'? Is he right?

Authors Avatar

Alex O’Cinneide        27th March 2004        PH416

What does Kant mean when he says that an action has moral worth only if it is done 'from the motive of duty'? Is he right?

A person's actions are right or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base).  A person's actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong.


All the things we do can be divided into those things which are voluntary actions, and those that are mere behaviour (e.g., knee jerk reflexes).  Of course there is no moral worth based on mere behaviours.  All voluntary actions can be divided into those that are contrary to duty and those which are not contrary to duty.  Kant claims that this distinction is based on the categorical imperative.  Clearly, no moral worth is attained by doing actions that are contrary to duty.  All those action that are not contrary to duty can be divided again into those action which are required by duty and those actions which are not required by duty.  Actions that are required by duty are things like keeping promises, paying debts, and other things that we commonly consider to be our duties.  These are all things that it would be impermissible not to do.  Actions not contrary to duty yet not required by duty are things that we are allowed to do, but that we have no obligation to do, like playing golf or getting ice cream.  Actions which are not required by duty also do not impart moral worth.  All the actions required by duty can be divided into those actions which are from duty, and those actions that are merely in accordance with duty.  This distinction is based on the motivation of the action.  Actions that are done because they are required by duty are actions done from duty.  Actions which are done for some other reason and just happen to be required by duty, are actions done merely in accordance with duty.  Only actions done from duty give a person moral worth.  The test for whether something was done from duty is to determine whether the person would have done it even if there were no other motivation for doing it.

Join now!

Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions.  Kant argues that one can have moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one is motivated by morality.  In other words, if a person's emotions or desires cause them to do something, then that action cannot give them moral worth.  It is then motivation as the deciding aspect of what matters. If I win the lottery and I'm with two choices with what to do either buy a yacht, travel in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay