• 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...


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.


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.


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

    withdrawal of life sustaining measures involves no intention to terminate the patient's life is to consider the growing practice of withholding artificial nutrition and hydration in those instances where a decision has been made to cease aggressive treatment, and then to see if we can generalise to cases like that of the motor neurone sufferer (cf.

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

    It is also commonly established that you should do certain actions simply because it is right to do so, one such example is that we should never commit murder because it is wrong to do so. It is possible to conceive a utilitarian calculation that would promote killing someone, but this compromises the moral integrity of utilitarianism.

  1. 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

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

    This study is often cited as evidence that moral behaviour is associated with moral reasoning, and therefore can predict moral behaviour because proportionately more post-conventional reasoners resisted authority as did subjects with lower stages of moral judgement. However, the fact that a considerable number of people at the lowest developmental

  1. What is morality, and within morality what can be considered fact or merely an ...

    Conventionalism is the moral perception of a complete society and can be entrenched in the history or culture of that society. The same is true here, where society A may believe it is a 'moral fact' to swear in public, society B may not condone swearing, but sees it as

  2. Could moral relativism be true?

    How though could one determine what is right and what is wrong? If enough people believe an action is right it is deemed to be so, and if enough believe it wrong, it is equally deemed wrong. An excellent example is the differing public response to the recent invasion of

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

    In the book by Charles Taylor, titled Modern Social Imaginaries, he included a quote by Grotius which states, "Human beings are rational, sociable agents who are meant to collaborate in peace to their mutual benefit" (Taylor, 2002, p.3). In other words, the primary drive of all human beings is the

  2. The term moral panic is a popular expression yet it has been widely misused.

    the degeneration of modern British society, despite the statistically murders were extremely rare in the UK. However, children have in the past killed other children, yet the death of James Bulger has been widely publicised by the media and in turn, moral panic is provoked to gain media attention as

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