Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This post covers, in an outline, the main ideas in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Good for students in Phil. 101 and other interested readers who need a review.
I. Preface
A. Basis of obligation
B. Where?
3. By the way, a posteriori = after Experience (note word post)–Kant ain’t into this
right now
C. Why?
1. Universality
3. By the way, Good Will is not mere wish, but full human power
B. If goal in life is . . .
2. Then reason and will are bad to carry out those inferior goals (contrast Aristotle)
1.. Then failure to reach goal because “cultivated” reason may deny path to
happiness
E. Reason acts on will to be good itself, not as a means to an end or goal, i.e. happiness
1.. First, unconditional purpose: Good Will, good in itself, not out for a shallow reward
1. First example
vs.
“Then his maxim [personal policy or principle] has a moral worth” (that’s a big deal!)
2. Second Example
Man who is already inclined to “spread joy” around him (no big deal!)
vs.
Philanthropist’s mind is clouded by sorrow that extinguishes concern for others, but
performs philanthropy in spite of distress . . .
1. But promote happiness from duty, not inclination—then his conduct acquires true
moral worth, e.g. a “gouty” patient
1.. Derives moral worth not from purpose (or goal), but from maxim (personal policy)
by which it is determined
Motive → Goal
C. Two Roads
C. Moral Good
2. Conception, not expected effect (desired results), must determine the will
B. Law in general
1. Kant Speaks:
“Can you also will that your [personal] maxim should be a universal law?”
3. Kant Speaks:
“Reason extorts from me immediate respect for such legislation” [universal law]
C. Example:
2. Can you will that your [personal] maxim [to lie] be a universal law?
D. Inclination v. Reason
3. Kant Speaks:
Whence [from where] have we the conception of God as the supreme good? Simply from the
idea of moral perfection, which reason frames a priori and connects inseparably with the notion
of free will.
A. Not hypothetical
1. Reason
2. Will is drawn to it
A. Kant explains:
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal
law”
B. Four Examples
1.. Man in despair: suicide? Can he will that to become universal law?
2. Man in financial straits: borrow deceitfully? Can he will that to become universal
law?
3. Man with cultural benefit: stay home and “party down”? Can he will that to become
universal law?
4. Rich man who sees others in need: ignore them? Can he will that to become
universal law?
X. Second Formulation
1.. In the old time philosophers, “end” usually means goal or purpose, as in “end
zone” in football. It’s the whole point of the game.
B. Kant Speaks:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never merely as a means [think stepping stone or path to get there] to an end [think goal
or end zone], but always at the same time as an end.
C. Rational–man is a rational being, so he is the end (end zone or goal) in itself, not a
means (stepping stone) to a goal.
E. Treat person, not as a means (stepping stones) to an end (goal), but as the end itself
To summarize, moral law can be followed only with one’s reason, not inclination (or instinct or
natural impulses). One must do one’s duty from reason and Good Will, which only reason apart
from experience can sort out.
A priori means before (note the word prior) your personal experience. You must use pure
reason to discover universal law or the Categorical Imperative