• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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. ...read more.

Middle

Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not make them any better than the other drunk. After all, they both made the same choices, and nothing within either one's control had anything to do with the difference in their actions. The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons. If both people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy, even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad consequences by bad luck. There is a further intuitive appeal of this theory, it has the advantage that a person is totally in control of whether they are a good person. A person does not have to be in a position of power and be able to bring about good consequences in order to be a good person, all that they need to do is to act for the right reasons. This makes Kant's theory fairly egalitarian. It also explains how people with greatly differing moral opinions can still have respect for each other as people. It is not just selfishness that is ruled out by Kant's theory, but any motive at all other than morality. ...read more.

Conclusion

There is also a tendency to think that Kant says it is always wrong to do something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an ice cream cone. This also I believe to be false. Kant thinks that you ought to do things to make yourself happy as long as you make sure that they are not immoral (i.e., contrary to duty), and that you would refrain from doing them if they were immoral. Getting ice cream is not immoral, and so you can go ahead and do it. Doing it will not make you a morally worthy person, but it won't make you a bad person either. Many actions that are permissible but not required by duty are neutral in this way. Therefore according to Kant a good person is someone who always does their duty because it is their duty. It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they would do it even if they did not enjoy it. It seems to me that Kants argument is strong and that he is correct in the idea that moral worth only comes from the sense of duty. Alex O'Cinneide 27th March 2004 PH416 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Religion in Society section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Religion in Society essays

  1. Can we Predict Moral Behaviour? It is Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development which ...

    A substantial number of students who were assessed at Kohlbergs levels one and two protested for their own rights. Yet, for the majority, their thinking was more strongly post conventional than a sample of matched non-participants. This shows that those judged as highly moral could be predicted to act in

  2. Discuss Mills concept of utilitarianism as a moral theory.

    decision should be made independently, analysing the utility of performing particular actions in particular circumstances. This is subject to the criticism that there are moral principles that conflict with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism would justify unfairness in various ways supporting such a view as the imprisonment of an innocent person to deter would be criminals.

  1. The entry sets out five individually necessary conditions for anyone to be a candidate ...

    'Living wills' or 'advance declarations' are legally useful instruments for giving voice to people's wishes while they are capable of giving competent, enduring and voluntary consent, including to their wanting help to die. As long as they are easily revocable in the event of a change of mind (just as

  2. I would like to begin my evaluation of moral relativism by further exploring the ...

    This is when their chest is cut open in an appropriate method to reach the still-beating heart inside, when it is subsequently ripped out. The first Spanish explorers, who observed this ritual at the time, thought the ritual to be senseless violence and the natives as barbaric and cruel.

  1. To what extent does the political theory of John Rawls allow scope for moral ...

    However, in a real society, we are not in the original position, but have multi-cultural, multi-faithed societies, in which there are wide variations on what is regarded as 'good'. Therefore, it would be very difficult to actually agree on principles of justice.

  2. Do we have the right to die?

    The averses remembered the laws of the fascist state of Germany, "your life isn't safe in Netherlands" forewarned, resurrecting all the list of the arguments against euthanasia. It's more than the Netherlands that indulge euthanasia, most of the countries which's law discountenances and condemns euthanasia even if this action is

  1. Ethnography - A Christian Youth Group

    "Talks" and "Sharing" are not only central to meetings, but also to other activities within "youth group" that I will explore later on. This allows "candidates" to create an atmosphere of intimacy and support amongst their peers. Afterwards, the "young adults" will also bring forth their own experience as teenagers or adults, as examples.

  2. Is religion really in decline in the west or is it merely changing?

    to Europe, suggesting that it may be particular characteristics of a religion that drive people away. Generally speaking, the majority of statistics on secularization supports the theory of secularization. However are statistics an indication of a decline in religious belief, or simply a decline in religious practise?

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work