• 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. 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.

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

    risked their life in order to save some civilians than it would be had they not done so. I would also argue that war itself is sometimes necessary, for example to protect civilians. Therefore it is impossible in practical terms to ask soldiers to completely eliminate any potential risk to civilians without rendering war itself morally impossible27.

  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. What does it mean to say that moral judgements are subjective? Is the claim ...

    point of view Conclusion 2: Suicide is immoral from culture Y's point of view The reason why morality appears as objective is because so many people share the same or similar views. This could be due to many factors such as similarities in human psychology.

  1. Philosophy - Kant's Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative.

    First, it is clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even people who would consider lying to her, must concede that the correct and expected action is to tell the truth.

  2. Comparison of the Moral Status of Fetus's and Animals.

    It is hard to put the moral status of what exists now ahead of the moral status of what will eventually exist, because then we would have to perform all of our actions according to what benefits us the most right now.

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

    The last element, symbolisation14 is when a word becomes a symbol, a certain status which have been highlighted and built up around certain labels. These labels are used to grab the reader's attention. Cohen suggested that society is often subjected to instances and periods of moral panic as it can

  2. Free essay

    Is the state of Israel a model for democracy in the Middle East?

    live in the world is exile from the original and Promised Land of the Jew (Ben-Rafael, 1989). However, people began to question the meaning of their Jewish identity, particularly after the creation of Israel. Furthermore, as the only Jewish state in the world, located in the biblical land of the

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