Kant’s Ethics of Duty: A Deep Dive into Moral Philosophy
Kant’s Ethics: Duty and Moral Philosophy
The central question of ethics for Kant is what one ought to do. This leads us to consider that morality is directly related to duty, to the question of what should be done and what should be avoided. According to Kant, ethics must be universal; its principles should be valid for all rational beings in an absolute and necessary manner. Morality that is based on the particular experience of a subject has only a contingent and particular value. Morality cannot be deduced from particular cases; rather, it should be based on a universal principle with which to confront actions. This principle of morality lies in reason and cannot be derived from feelings, inclinations, or desires but must be determined a priori by the will. A priori means regardless of experience and every object of sensation. Recall that, unlike Kant, Aristotle recognizes natural tendencies inclined to good. The question of what I ought to do does not mean what I like to do, what I want to do, or what I need to do; that is not the question. So, the subject may think of pleasure or their own individual interest. None of these can be the motive for moral action. The only valid motive lies in reason alone, which can determine the will to act freely. This means that ethics must be rational. Kant argues that nature gave our will reason as a director. If the aim of the will were happiness, nature would be wrong to give it reason, as reason often requires sacrificing the interests of drives and, with them, one’s own happiness. Kant concludes here that “there must be a more worthy purpose than happiness for which reason is destined, and to which all private ends of man, including happiness, must be subordinate.” This most worthy purpose is “to produce a will good in itself, and this is absolutely necessary.” Here, one can also see a clear difference from Aristotle’s proposition.
Kant’s Personal Life and Habits
Kant never left the confines of Königsberg, his hometown. He was so methodical that people who knew him could tell the time by seeing him walk his dog. He got up every day at five o’clock. He was extremely punctual in his classes. He focused so much on his work that he would place a handkerchief at the other end of the table to remind himself to get up from his chair.
The Duty of Good Will
In principle, the will is the ability to determine itself to act according to a universal principle of reason. Nothing is in itself good or bad. “The talents of the mind, courage, determination, perseverance in purposes, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects, but they can also become extremely bad and harmful if the will that has to make use of these gifts of nature is not good.” Power, wealth, fame, success, and happiness depend on a willingness to accommodate and order them. The human will is subject to impulses and desires. When the reason that determines the will to act is an object that is desired, the principle from which we act is material or empirical. The decision depends on the feeling of pleasure or displeasure from that object, one’s own pleasure. When the principle that determines the will is a law of reason, this principle is formal, and the will is determined a priori. This means that the principle that acts not only comes from experience but is in itself. This means that the will does not depend on any sensation of pleasure or displeasure, any desire, or any need, but only on itself, what reason determines. A good will itself is one that:
- Acts according to duty and not merely in accordance with duty.
- Is autonomous because it is inherently a legislator; it is free to be its own law.
Regarding the first claim, Kant is indicating the difference between morality and legality. A morally good will always acts out of duty.