The main question which Kant’s moral theory was designed to answer is: ‘what is the nature of morality?’ this question can also be put in different ways: ‘what is a moral action as contrasted with a non-moral one?’ or again, ‘what is the difference between a person who acts morally and one who does not?’ Kant believe that this question, or set of questions, could be answered that the key to it lay in distinguishing between acts done from ‘inclination’ and acts done from a ‘sense of duty’.

People often indulge in a certain course of action because they are forced to. For instance, if I am waylaid by a thief, I will be forced to turn my money over to him if I have any, or if I refuse, I am forced to suffer the consequences. In such a case, we would not ordinarily describe my actions as being ‘voluntary actions’, or ‘actions done because I wanted to’. Nor would we say that I was ‘doing my duty’. In this instance. Not a free agent; I am properly described as not acting either ‘inclination’ or ‘from duty’ but rather as ‘being compelled to do it.’ Hence, it is a requisite of any act being done from ‘inclination’ or ‘duty’ that it be the act of a free agent.

Now, obviously, individuals often free in the above sense - nobody is forcing them to behave in a certain way, or otherwise constraining their behaviour. For instance I am free tonight either to go to a movie or to stay at home and book, or even to continue to type this chapter. In a significant sense is up to me which of these I will do. But which of these ought I do? If I have promised my publisher to finish this chapter tonight, then I am under an ‘obligation’ to continue to work on it. On the other hand matter is not pressing, if there exists no ‘demand’ on me, we could say that it is a matter of ‘taste’ or ‘inclination’ which I should do. I s do that which I want to do, or which it pleases me to do, provided, of course, that no obligation exists which it is my duty to do. Now, be seen from this example, ‘inclination’ is to be distinguished ‘obligation’. An obligation is that which one ought to do despite inclinations to do otherwise. Once under an obligation, one ought to attempt to fulfil it. If no obligation exists, then it becomes a matter of inclination or of taste which one should do.

Now some philosophers have held that in matters of morality should act upon one’s inclinations. He/she should do that act pleases him/her, or which he/she wants to do in those circumstances but Kant strongly rejects such an account of morality. He feels that a person is acting morality only when he suppresses his/her feelings and inclinations, and does that which he/she is obliged to do. Thus ‘doing one’s duty’, is doing something which one is not inclined or will do, but which he/she does because he/she recognizes that he/she to do it; an obligation exists and he/she must fulfil it. Thus a person does something merely because he/she is afraid not to do it (such as the fear of being imprisoned for not repaying a debt) is not a moral person: nor is a person moral who repays a debt merely because he/she to, or inclines towards doing that rather than something else. It when a person recognizes that he/she ought to repay a debt because she has incurred an obligation that he/she is genuinely a moral person. Thus morality, as Kant sees it, is closely bound up with one’s duties and obligations.

Join now!

One further point must be made before we can proceed to elements of Kant’s moral theory. It is important to distinguish which are ‘in accord with duty’ from those done ‘from duty’, as Kant puts it. The former are not moral acts, but the latter are. For in most parents are inclined to take care of their children; they may inclined because they are fond of them, or because they fear police action if they neglect them. But anyone who takes care of one’s children for these reasons is not acting morally. One is acting ‘in accord with duty’. One would ...

This is a preview of the whole essay