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 essay...

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.

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.

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

The above preview is unformatted text

Found what you're looking for?

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

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Over 180,000 student essays
  • Every subject and level covered
  • Thousands of essays marked by teachers

Related University Degree Religion in Society

  1. Ethnography - A Christian Youth Group

    Platters of bagels, donuts, cookies, juices and sodas line the long table. Sluggish teens begin to trickle in at eight thirty in the morning and 'attack' the table for a half an hour, prior to the commencement of the new day.

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

    degree, so that imposing a one-in-ten chance of death on them is justified, while imposing a three-in-ten chance is unjustified?" He argues that all we can ask of soldiers is that "due care" is taken to prevent civilian casualties.28 However, this in itself is not very helpful, as it implies

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

    'Rule' utilitarianism on the other hand advocates the following of general moral rules, rules that if everyone followed would generate the maximum amount of happiness (for example a rule preventing killing or rape). If on a particular occasion the rule wouldn't have the best consequences a 'rule' utilitarian would still

  2. 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

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

    Opponents of voluntary euthanasia have endeavoured to counter this very straightforward moral case for the practice in a variety of ways. Some of the counter-arguments are concerned only with whether the moral case warrants making the practice of voluntary euthanasia legal, others are concerned with trying to undermine the moral case itself.

  2. Is abortion a morally just practice?

    Suppose we are critically ill and the touch of our favourite film star will cure us of our ailment. Thomson argues that although it would be a nice thing to do, the movie star is not morally obliged to do it.

  1. Do we have the right to die?

    In Greek law the subject "euthanasia" is extremely distinct and perspicuous. In the item 303 of the criminal law it is said that "Anyone who decided and executes homicide, after constant insistence and demand of the victim even if this action is considered merciful for him who was terminally ill, is punished with imprisonment".

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

    In this way, Rawls seems to impose moral, liberal beliefs of his own onto the negotiators, thus restricting moral diversity. This is especially because the principles which result from this biased procedure may hinder the attainment of a different conception of good.

  • Over 180,000 essays
    written by students
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to write
    your own great essays

Marked by a teacher

This essay has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the essay.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the essay page.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review under the essay preview on this page.