• 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. Euthanasia - Right or wrong?

    "One is if the patient is in an advanced terminal illness that is causing unbearable suffering to the individual. This is the most common reason to seek an early end. The other is if the person suffers from a grave physical handicap which is so restricting that the individual cannot,

  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. Suicide: Selfish or Selfless?

    Other loved ones wonder how they could have missed the "suicidal signs". They remember every argument, every negative comment they made, and feel almost certain that they alone are to blame for this person's death. In fact, the most selfish aspect of suicide is leaving loved ones with so much guilt that they may never recover.

  2. Do we have the right to die?

    As the lecturer of criminal law in the Aristotelian university of Thessalonica claims, "if something should change in the legislation is the distinction between two cases: In the one hand the cases of dereliction of help supply for longer sustenance, to the patient that faces death and does not want to extend his life "deadline".

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

    However, a portion of subjects judged to be at stage six moral reasoners were willing to go along with social authority and continued to shock to the point where the shocks would have caused great pain and posed physical danger to the person supposedly receiving the shocks.

  2. To what extent are individual soldiers morally responsible for the protection of civilians during ...

    consequences then morality itself breaks down.22 However, what about the unintended but foreseen consequences of our actions? Obviously these are two related but different things. Unforeseen consequences are those which cannot be anticipated before an act. Unintended consequences however are those consequences which are not intentional, but which may have been foreseeable.

  1. Explain why it is central to Kant's moral philosophy that we treat people, including ...

    murderer at the door about the fact that his intended victim is upstairs) the application of the first formulation can make lying permissible.(2) I will return to this later and the contradictions it raises with treating rational beings as ends.

  2. Is abortion a morally just practice?

    Putting this aside, Singer also questions whether mobility should be morally relevant- 'we do not see the lack of capacity as negating the claims of paralysed people to go on living'. The last of the possible liberal points of moral relevance is consciousness.

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