The present Grounding is, however, intended for nothing more than seeking out and establishing the supreme principle of morality. (392)
Thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness. (393)
A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attained some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself. (394)
Therefore, we shall take up the concept of duty, which includes that of a good will, though with certain certain subjective restrictions and hindrances, which far from hiding a good will or rendering it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast to make it shine forth more brightly. On the other hand, to preserve one's life is a duty; and furthermore, everyone has also an immediate inclination to do so. (397)
Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law. (399)
Thus the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it nor in any principle of action that needs to b0rrow its motive from the expected effect. (401)
Innocence is indeed a glorious thing; unfortunately it does not keep very well and it is easily led astray. (405)
Grounding from the Ordinary Rational
ReplyDeleteKnowledge of Morality to the Philosophical
First Section
The present Grounding is, however, intended
for nothing more than seeking out and
establishing the supreme principle of
morality. (392)
Thus a good will seems to constitute the
indispensable condition of bing even worthy of
happiness. (393)
A good will is good not becuse of what it
effects or accomplishes, nor because of its
fitness to attained some proposed end; it is
good only through its willing, i.e., it is good
in itself. (394)
Therefore, we shall take up the consept of
duty, which includes that of a good will,
though with certain certain subjective
restrictions and hindrances, wich far from
hiding a good will or rendering it
unrecognizabble, rather bring it out by
contrast to make it shine forth more brightly.
On the other hand, to preserve one's life is
a duty; and furthermore, everyone has also an
immedate inclination to do so. (397)
Duty is the necessity of an action done
out of respect for the law. (399)
Thus the moral worth of an action does not
lie in the effect expected from it nor in any
principle ofactionthat needs to b0rrow its
motive from the expected effect. (401)
Innocense is indeed a glorious thing;
unfortunately it does not keep very well and it
is easily led astray. (405)
So from this outline I got that to have good will is good in itself and that duty is necessary when an action is performed in respect to/of a law?? Seemed to be jumping all over the place and I had a hard time understanding exactly what point the writer was trying to get across. Doesn't seem to be drawn from the writers own words per say, yet it did hit some key points of the reading. Was difficult trying to come to a conclusion as it seems one hasn't been made (maybe due to format??). Overall, i think it could have been broken down a bit more in the writers own words to simplify some of what was being said in th passage.
ReplyDeleteI still don't have a comfortable grasp on Kant's writing yet, but here's what I basically understand from the quotes Henrietta chose as key points from the reading: (392) Kant is writing this in an effort to examine and establish rules or principles for morality that are infallible, absolute, incorruptable.
ReplyDelete(393) Good will gives value to all other things. A person can have all kinds of other good things, money, honor, good health but this person isn't happy in any real sense if they are unable to perform and action without ANY benefit to themselves - "...a being who is not graced byany touch of a pure and good will ...can never delight a rational and impertial spector." (394) The converse of 393 is not true, good will is not defined relative to the value of something else. Good will is self-determining. (397) When we act out of duty, we act without a thought to our own benefit, even if this action brings about an end that interferes with us getting what we want (inclination). But, in doing so we do not feel a loss at not fulfilling these inclinations because acting in good will provides its own satisfaction. ((399) Action done from duty is devoid of connection to any material principle. The rule of a universal law can be an object of respect in that it doesn't serve one's inclination instead it is an absolute rule that must be followed without question. So, action taken purely due to repect for the such a law is action whose motive is duty/good will (401) good will doesn't come from any action connected to material principles (405) Pure morality is the highest good but morality is easily corrupted by inclinations.
I agree with Annmarie with difficulties with Kant’s writing but after our class lecture it became somewhat clear and this is what I gathered. Kant explained that the only thing good in itself is the “good will”. Doing something because you think it is good does not make the act good. It is in the attitude you have towards it. An example I thought of is I go to my father’s home on Sundays for dinner and he ask me to set the dinner table for him. So I set the table even though I am in the middle of watching my favorite show “The Real Housewives of Atlanta”, got to love NeNe. I am inclined to set the table by doing something out of good will because it is strictly for the sake of duty, representing doing the right thing because it is your duty to do so.
ReplyDelete(405) Pure morality is the highest good but morality is easily corrupted by inclinations. Setting the table for my father because it makes him happy and I care about him so I do it with no complaints. Even though this seems good, if I get joy out of helping my father then I am also inclined to do so. Setting the table simply because I like to set the dinner table is also an inclination to do so out of the pleasure I get from setting the dinner table Once you do an act you are inclined to do because of some reward or pleasure involved it is not considered your good will, must be duty inspired. According to Kant, a rational being with a good will automatically does its duty.
While reading Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I couldn't help but compare his work to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, the book we just read. To me Kant's conception of good was found to be a little more interesting than Aristotle's because he speaks of the good in a universal sense. In Aristotles book Nicomachean Ethics, he spoke of what he considered good. Aristotle listed some examples such as friendship, experiencing pleasure, being healthy, and being honored. He spoke of how every good action could lead to some sort of happiness. However in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant thinks, "A good will 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" Kant states that moral worth doesn't depend on the activity of an action, but instead on the principle of which the action is carried out on. Kant seems to believe good will is the only object that is truly good in itself and not a product of anything else. Kant defines good will as the ability to complete actions for their sole purpose and duty. With this in ind, I thought although happiness can vary from person to person, a duty always remains constant. I'm curious to see how else these authors are going to compare in the future.
ReplyDeletei agree with line 392 everyone wants to establish supreme principle of morality. everyone desires to do what is right not only for themselves but the people they care for as well. But someone with good will will do what is right because it is right and not be lead astray from it because the is no end in doing the right thing. It is difficult to do something good and not feel pleasure even if it is a duty , so why most we be considered incline because we enjoy doing what is right?
ReplyDeleteI must admit this particular argumentative outline left me perplexed. The outline appeared to merely be multiple points listed without a clearly stated conclusion. With that being said I felt it hard to understand the point Henrietta was trying to make. As Mayrie stated above what I was able to surmise from this is that to have good will is good in itself and that duty is necessary when an action is performed in respect to/of a law? Although I am not sure that this is the point the writer was trying to get across. I feel that more clarification and detail is needed in this outline.
ReplyDeleteI’m not clear as to what the writer was trying to imply. Although the writer did make a few good points from the reading perhaps I would of grasped the writer concept a little better if they would have expounded on their points a little. I thought that I would get a little more insight on the argument for this was a tough reading for me. I do agree that duty is an action that is required or demanded in respect to law. How universal is this law? Could there be law on your job in which we act out of duty? Or do we act out of inclination on our jobs? The reason I draw this question is because jobs has laws like stealing time, insubordination etc. that could cause you to be terminateded or in some cases prosecuted. So when we do what is required or demanded of us on our jobs are we acting out of duty or inclination. Are we acting out of selfish reasons, to look better than the next person or to get the “atta boy” award from our boss?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this outline, I had a hard time understanding what the writer was implying. I read each point but could not draw a conclusive conclusion. Although the writer brought up significant points, I feel as though the argument would have been better if there was more of an explanation, rather than excerpts from the text. I'm not quite sure what the overall argument was, but I assume it has to do with good will and duty. I can agree that the passages that were used seemed to be very important.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to comment on this, as I am left baffled by what exactly is going on. Going off of what we have learned in class, I can discuss the inclination aspect of Kant's writing. Although I understand that he views inclinations as being "corrupt" in some way or another, I would like to disagree. I do not believe that one must be selfish if there is an inclination to act a certain way towards another.
For example: if my immediate action is to be nice to a friend in a time of need in order to help them through a rough time, I would not view that as being selfish. In fact, I would argue that it is the complete opposite. Rather, a duty in itself to help another person. This would be an example of acting from duty alone, rather than conformity with duty. No one has demanded me to reach out, I have simply done so myself. Deontology, in a sense, revolves around this complex idea of duties/obligations we do for others. So why would this example of reaching out not be of worth?
Kant confuses me quite a bit. I would have liked to see more of an explanation in hopes of it clarifying some troubling areas for myself.
The book by Kant as well as this outline was really hard for me understand. It seems like the points came from the book instead of the writers own words. And due to me missing the previous class, I never got the full understanding of the first section. So it's almost impossible for me to make a comment on this outline. All that I can say is that this section reminded me of the reading "Bad Samaritans, Acts and Omissions" when it came to doing a good act outside of what your used to doing or wouldn't ordinarily do.
ReplyDelete