Analysis Of Kant, Groundings For The Metaphysics Of Morals
Kant starts, Groundings for the Metaphysics of Morals, by explaining the difference between things that are good, and things that are good only with qualification. When it comes to the first type of good there is only one thing that counts, good will. Good will is by itself the only thing in the universe that is unconditionally good, and incorruptible. Everything else that we perceive as good, is not really good on its own and is equally capable of being bad.
Wit, intelligence, and talent are all things we perceive as good, but are not really good in themselves. Each can be used to perform evil. In fact, those are things we would imagine any real super villain to have. Kant also believed that the moderation of the golden mean, which …show more content…
A person can do a good deed, that results in disaster and it would still be good will, so long as it was done out of duty and obligation and not for a desired result. For example, if you tried to save a drowning person, but failed and they were to die anyway, the intent was still good therefore the deed was good even without a positive outcome.
Kant believed that goodwill must been done because it is your duty. We all know we are not performing goodwill when we are doing something bad, but according to Kant sometimes even when we are doing something we think is good, it's still not goodwill because we expect a certain outcome. For example, if I were to donate money to charity knowing that I would get a feeling of happiness from the act, it was not actually ethically good. I had an intent and expectation about the outcome, which negated the goodwill of the act. Duty is about doing the right thing when you do not want …show more content…
I think we can still do good even when we have a desired outcome. I honestly, have a hard time even imagining the type of situation where a person would have no expectation of an outcome. Even if I perform a charitable deed at a direct disadvantage to myself, I still think I'll feel better having done it, which according to Kant means it was not really a good deed. I do not know if my mind is capable of even separating the idea of action and consequence. Good should be done for the sake of good, but I believe the consequences of good acts can be enjoyed without lessening the intent of the
Wit, intelligence, and talent are all things we perceive as good, but are not really good in themselves. Each can be used to perform evil. In fact, those are things we would imagine any real super villain to have. Kant also believed that the moderation of the golden mean, which …show more content…
A person can do a good deed, that results in disaster and it would still be good will, so long as it was done out of duty and obligation and not for a desired result. For example, if you tried to save a drowning person, but failed and they were to die anyway, the intent was still good therefore the deed was good even without a positive outcome.
Kant believed that goodwill must been done because it is your duty. We all know we are not performing goodwill when we are doing something bad, but according to Kant sometimes even when we are doing something we think is good, it's still not goodwill because we expect a certain outcome. For example, if I were to donate money to charity knowing that I would get a feeling of happiness from the act, it was not actually ethically good. I had an intent and expectation about the outcome, which negated the goodwill of the act. Duty is about doing the right thing when you do not want …show more content…
I think we can still do good even when we have a desired outcome. I honestly, have a hard time even imagining the type of situation where a person would have no expectation of an outcome. Even if I perform a charitable deed at a direct disadvantage to myself, I still think I'll feel better having done it, which according to Kant means it was not really a good deed. I do not know if my mind is capable of even separating the idea of action and consequence. Good should be done for the sake of good, but I believe the consequences of good acts can be enjoyed without lessening the intent of the