Kant's Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals Summary

Matthew O’Donnell
15 September 2012
Philosophy 203, Section 010
Kant Assignment
Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals starts off by saying there is only one thing that is good without qualification which is a good will. Something can only be good if it is well-matched with a good will. In fact, “a good will is” according to him, “is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing i.e., it is good in itself” (7). He states that these specific obligations of a good will are called duties and then makes three propositions about them. Kant then says that “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim
should become a universal law” (14). This is saying one should act in a way that everyone could act. By following Kant’s definition of duty, motives of duty, and the three propositions it proves that this argument is valid and correct, but has a major flaw.
Kant assigns general duties that we must follow.
He says, “we shall take up the concept of duty though with certain subjective restrictions and hindrances rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth more brightly” (9). He divides the word duty into perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties, or “pure” (2) duties, are such things as do not murder or do not steal. Imperfect duties could be something like helping another in need. He then goes on to say that perfect duties never conflict with one another. Next that if a perfect and an imperfect duty coincide then one must act from the perfect duty. An example of this would be if to help another one would have to commit murder, then one must follow the perfect duty and not kill. This also means one would not help the other too. Lastly if the conflict is between two imperfect duties then one can choose between the two according to their own discretion. The process for defining ones duty is by looking at the
motives.
To determine one’s duty the action must be universally approved of. He or she may do the duty so they get a reward from it but that is not a morally right action. Morality is obtained from the person being required to do the duty without looking to gain reward. One must have a motive of duty. According to Kant all other motives are “inclinations or fears” (10). If a person wants to help someone because they want to they are being motived by their desires rather than duty. One must be obligated to act to have a motive of duty and to have moral worth.
The first proposition states that to have moral worth an action must be done from duty. He is trying to get the point across that every action that is preformed is done for a reason. That it must be from duty not in accordance with duty. From duty has morality and moral worth, while in accordance with duty is just following the law. Kant uses an example of the grocery store owner who treats all of his customers fairly in order to make more money is not acting morally because his reasoning is motivated by his owns interest. If the store owner acts fairly to all his customers because he believes it’s the right thing to do then he is following a moral law and acting out of self-interest. The way one should act is from an obligation to moral laws rather than for personal gain.
The second principle is “an action done from duty has its moral worth, not in purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined” (12).
Maxim refers to a principle or reason. This is saying that the moral worth is depending upon the reason for which one performs the action. In the grocery store example, the moral worth of his act to be fair to all the customers is moral because by the goodness of it being a moral law or duty, not by what it will bring oneself. The only maxims or principles that can be one are that which everyone agrees upon including oneself. If everyone acts on that maxim then the action itself has moral worth. The action has to be a universally agreed upon. One must ask themselves if this could be a law for everyone. If this is true then one’s action indeed has moral worth.
Lastly he states, “Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law.” One should act out of respect for the reason everyone could act on that maxim. One should act as an equal to when reasoning if the action is something everyone would act on. Again in the grocery store owner example he must treat all customers fairly because the maxim says he must obey this. One cannot make an exception for themselves and think they are higher than anyone else; the action needs to be consistent for every
situation.
Kant wants only reason to direct the will in its search for morality. Following the three propositions he makes it clear that to reach a maxim it must be a universal law. There is a major flaw in his theory. If following what is known so far and the case arose that to help out and save a child’s life one would have lie, he or she would have to not lie. By following Kant’s propositions and definitions of duty one cannot lie because it is morality wrong and is a universal law not to lie. Everyone would agree that lying is bad but also they would agree upon that letting a child dye is bad also. One would hope that in a case like this everyone would lie to help out a child so they could live. This means that Kant’s theory isn’t fully developed yet. Exceptions or some other rule has to be laid out in his foundation for this theory to work for all cases. Different degrees of laws need to be set. His theory is very sound but needs some type of improvement.
In conclusion he makes it clear that to reach a maxim one must ask themselves if it will be universally acceptable and if so see if the motive is for duty rather than an incentive. Although this theory has a flaw he has only laid out the ground work for basic morality. Through only reason one will be able to do the morally right action in circumstances that are hard to determine. Like in the grocery store example if one is fair and acts only out of respect for duty then they will receive moral wealth from there action. Moral wealth is something he wants one to get without one trying to receive it or setting a goal to obtain. Being a rational human being who consistently has the motive of duty will have reached what Kant wanted all along: a good will.