Introduction
The topics of ethics and morality are prominent in philosophical works, and many philosophers have proposed their own theories of ethics. Kantian ethics focuses on the concept of duty, and acting out of duty is perceived by Kant as a sign of morality. In his writings, Kant discusses this idea in greater depth by explaining what acting out of duty means and how the definition of ethical actions depends on the context and on the person’s motivations. Consequently, Kant’s works help to understand his ideas of morality in greater depth and relate them to real-world examples. The present essay will focus on the cases Kant uses to illustrate his understanding of ethics and duty. The paper will discuss the examples provided, comment on how they elucidate the concept of goodwill, and consider the problems arising from Kant’s descriptions.
Examples
The two examples presented in Kant’s work are those of a shopkeeper and a man who had lost his will to live. In the first example, Kant (1998) writes, “it certainly conforms with a duty that a shopkeeper not overcharge an inexperienced customer, and where there is a good deal of trade a prudent merchant does not overcharge but keeps a fixed general price for everyone so that a child can buy from him as well as everyone else” (p. 4:398). The author explains that in keeping a fair price on his products, the shopkeeper conforms with his duty to provide service to various customers. However, Kant (1998) argues that this does not necessarily constitute a moral action because conformity with one’s duty does not signify that their motivation was to fulfill their duty. Kant (1998) explains that in this case, “this is not nearly enough for us to believe that the merchant acted in this way from duty and basic principles of honesty; his advantage required it” (p. 4:398). Because the results of the action benefitted the shopkeeper, it is thus possible that he acted to keep his business profitable rather than in fulfillment of his duty to customers. Consequently, the action cannot be defined as moral or immoral until a person’s motivations are clearly identified and explored.
In the second example, the situation is different as it concerns only one person. Kant (1998) based this illustration on the idea that preservation of life is a duty of all humans, and to take away one’s life is an immoral action. Still, the maintenance of life out of anxiety and the natural inclination to do so is not moral (Kant, 1998). Most people have no intention of killing themselves, they want to enjoy their life, and thus they act in their own interests while preserving life. The moral example provided by Kant (1998) here is that “if adversity and hopeless grief have quite taken away the taste for life; if an unfortunate man, strong of soul and more indignant about his fate than despondent or dejected, wishes for death and yet preserves his life without loving it, not from inclination or fear but from duty, then his maxim has moral content” (p. 4:398). Based on this argument, it is evident that the person preserves life out of duty because he has no other motivation to live. In fact, he wants to die but continues to live in suffering because it is his duty.
Hence, based on the two examples, the difference between acting in conformity with one’s duty and acting out of duty relies on the persons’ motivations. If the motivation is self-interest, then the person’s action is not a reflection of morality, even if they act in accordance with their duties. Nevertheless, when duty is the primary driver of one’s decisions and actions, they reflect a moral maxim and can be considered ethical based on Kantian concepts of ethics. Hence, the examples contrast people’s motivations for action to illustrate Kant’s central message.
Good Will
The concept of goodwill is crucial to Kant and is explored in his works. The author claims that “it is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will” (Kant, 1998, p. 4:393). In this chapter, good will is contrasted with personal traits and characteristics, which may turn evil despite being generally considered desirable. For instance, courage can turn into recklessness or aggression, and wealth can be used to benefit society or to facilitate violence. Consequently, good will is the only unconditional indicator of moral behavior in Kantian ethics. The author explores the phenomenon in detail by clarifying that good will does not rely on the effects of an action or their accomplishments; rather, it is determined by the nature of willing (Herman, 1981). This might seem confusing at first, and thus Kant (1998) offers examples to illustrate this concept and explain the qualities that distinguish good will from positive traits, characteristics, or accomplishments. Herman (1981) writes, “the way the examples are set up suggests that they are offered as cases in which good willing is perspicuous, rather than as the only kinds of cases in which good willing is present or can be known” (p. 362). Hence, the primary purpose of the examples discussed above was to offer real-world implications of good will and help to convey the author’s message to the audience.
The intended purpose of the examples is supported in two ways. On the one hand, they present contrasting situations that assist in identifying differences between morality and the lack of it. On the other hand, they are supported with in-depth explanations of meanings that convey the role of differences between cases in determining good will. Because the primary dissimilarity between the two cases provided is the actor’s motives, the examples help to understand that the definition of good will rests on the person’s motivations. In other words, good will underpins a person’s decisions and actions, just like their character traits, habits, or characteristics would; however, good will is more foundational to ethics because it concerns one’s motivations for acting a certain way. This explanation contributes to the ideas of duty discussed in the previous section. While there are many actions that could be mistaken for examples of good will because they comply with ethical expectations, good will is only present when the person’s primary motivation is to act in accordance with their duty. For Kant, this makes good will particularly powerful in moral terms because it means that a person will choose to do good even if the action is against their self-interest or contrasts with their personal characteristics. The power of good will in influencing people’s behaviors thus makes it good without limitation.
Problems
Although Kant’s picture of these cases helps to support his discussion of good will and morality, there are still a couple of problems that arise from them. First of all, it is not clear whether duty must be the primary motivation or the only motivation in order for an action to be considered moral. For example, if the person in the second example had other reasons to live but focused primarily on duty in his decision-making, it is unclear if Kant would consider him as an illustration of good will. Clarifying the requirements would make the discussion less vague and help in exploring its applications in the real world. Another issue is that, if duty has to be the only motivation for action, then the ideas offered by Kant (1998) equate good will with personal suffering. This is particularly evident in the example of a suicidal man; if every person had to go through similar turmoil and pain and withstand it out of duty to be considered moral, then morality would often coincide with unhappiness. Exploring and analyzing Kant’s writings further would help to clarify the examples, but on their own, they are somewhat vague and may not answer all of the readers’ questions.
Conclusion
On the whole, the examples provided by Kant help readers to gain a better grasp of his ideas and elucidate the concept of good will through real-life examples. The differences between the two people considered by Kant (1998) show that motivation is the key determinant of morality. It is not enough to act in conformity with duty; in order to be considered moral, a person has to demonstrate good will and be motivated by duty. However, the examples are still limited in terms of their value because they do not clarify whether duty should be the only motive or simply the main one. This restricts their application in the study of Kantian ethics and prompts further inquiry into his writings.
References
Herman, B. (1981). On the value of acting from the motive of duty. The Philosophical Review, 90(3), 359-382.
Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.