• 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. 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. 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,

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

    It is evident that utilitarians believe that the notion of the good is prior to that of the right but it is important to discuss how the ideas of utilitarianism can be used in applied ethics and whether moral rules can be constructed and justified.

  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. Euthanasia: The Right to Die

    This is in contrast to, as little as 25 years ago; only 45% of Canadians said that they believed a suffering patient should be able to ask a doctor for help to die (Guy, 1993).

  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 ...

    Lying is only beneficial to a liar if it is not universal; it is therefore self-defeating and morally prohibited. This argument is countered by Korsgaard when she states that in the case of evil, as depicted by the 'inquiring murderer' (where an individual has to decide about lying to a

  2. Is abortion a morally just practice?

    The capacity to feel pain and pleasure are certainly morally significant particularly to a preference utilitarian like Singer. However consciousness is a rarely mooted point in the discussion of abortion. Whilst life itself is of importance to the Conservative, the Liberal is on uncertain ground as medical studies have fund

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