Immanuel Kant Morality

The philosophy of moral actions being guided by duty rather than inclination is naturally unappealing, but such a response cannot be a determinate of erroneous thought. Immanuel Kant, the great German who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy, provides a solid argument calling for the normative support of actions being guided by duty rather inclination for the sake of fulfilling the natural purpose of reason. Kant’s ethics, which are clearly deontological, come under heavy criticism by his contemporaries in regards to topics such as the precise nature of the good will, the disregard of personal happiness, and the impracticality of a lifestyle pivoting on duty rather inclination. Nonetheless, a reasonable analysis of Kant’s point
One of the criticisms of Kant’s argument is the equating of the definition of the essence of good will as his definition of the essence of moral attitude. Phenomenologist Hans Reiner, for one, believes that the quality of the will is not “detached from the ‘intention’ or the ‘end’ of the action wanted,” implying that the moral attitude of actions taken is not solely related to formal law. Additionally, the concept of a moral goodness implies that a will must be either absolutely good or not good at all. This point may be worrisome on an agent’s practical ability to perform within the constraints of the good will, for no leeway is available for those who fall short of performing their duty in respect to the moral law. The argument also comes under criticism in the case of concept of Kant’s concept of happiness. Happiness may very well happen unexpectedly upon a rational agent without the pursuit of duty or satisfaction of inclination. In such a situation, what then is the moral calculation of an agent who finds himself in undeliberate, yet happy circumstances? Lastly, the most common criticism of normative philosophies also applies to Kant’s moral argument: to judge an action correctly is a separate matter of acting accordingly to the same judgement. Society will have to undergo a
A critic who believes that the quality of the will must be in some way related to the intention or consequences of an action challenges the fundamental deontological aspect of Kant’s thinking; consequentialists and the like have no place in Kant’s argument unless they are prepared to unravel Kant’s philosophy on basic morality first. In the case of criticisms denouncing the idea of absolute good or not good in wills, Kant – very simply – does not believe in a necessity to justify such criticisms. Qualitative goodness is not the issue in Kant’s argument; just to do good is to fulfill of the natural purpose of reason, and it is far too early or presumptuous of any philosopher to deem goodness accordingly to separate calibers or degrees of excellence. In the context of Kant’s argument, absolute good and not good are values that do not pose a problem for rational coherency – although it is true that Kant does not address the immediate discomfort moral constraints impose on the agent, as rational coherency is his foremost priority. However, Kant does address the problems of unanticipated imposition of happiness, which is, to reiterate, the sum of an agent’s inclinations. It is improbable to think that Kant believes inclinations are an expected phenomenon: the case of the passionate criminal versus the cold-blooded criminal is put forth by Kant