Good Will/ Kant’s view of moral action/The Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative—Formula

Kant’s view of moral action

It is morally wrong to make an exception of ourselves (ex: it's bad to steal but if I do it’s okay)

Deontology – What makes an action right is the rule or principle behind the action, not its consequences 

- Categorical Imperative (CI): moral law 

Kant’s view of moral action-redefined

The action should be taken only if it can be willed as a universal law applicable to everyone, regardless of the consequences of the action itself; essentially, the morality of an act lies in the intention behind it, not the outcome

Derived from sense of duty, motivated by a "good will" and following a universal principle called the Categorical Imperative

The Good Will

not good because of its consequences, but because of its intention and what you intend to bring consequently 

• Also, a will that is unconditionally good in virtue of its motivation/intention (duty) 

Unconditionally good  

• Always in every circumstance 

Limitations to Good Will

1. Talents of mind (intelligence, knowledge) 

2. Good fortune (wealth, power) 

3. Happiness 

Volition

Animal volition: 

Inclination --> action 

Rational volition: 

Inclination --> reason/imperative --> action

Reason

the capacity to represent something as good or desirable (like a filter)

Will

the capacity to act according to reason (i.e. what you judge to be good)

Inclination

feelings, their desires, emotions, 

• Eat pizza because im hungry (desire) --> Reason (yes or no?) --> Imperative -> action 

• Actions done from inclination are always “hypothetical” or “conditional” 

Duty

the motive to do what is moral simply because it is the moral thing to do, not for any other reason 

• Motivated by reason alone 

• “Pure respect for the moral law is what constitutes duty”  

• Unconditional and categorical 

Conformity w/ duty

doing what morality requires but not from a motive of duty 

“From duty”

doing what morality requires from a motive of duty 

Imperatives

what we “ought” to do, as determined by reason 

Hypothetical Imperatives

what you “ought” to do to satisfy ends set by inclination 

• “whoever wills the end also wills ... the means” 

• If you want X, take the means to X 

End: losing weight. Get rich, go camping 

Means: exercise, exploit others, start pyramid scheme, buy tent 

If you lose the desire, you do not have to take the necessary means  

Categorical imperative

what you “ought” to do unconitionally regardless of inclination (ie, our duties/obligations” 

“Must be followed even against inclination”  

-eat pizza (hungry —> Reason —-> Imperative = Action

(desire)                         (yes or no)

Formula of Universal Law

Act only in accordance with that maxim which you can as a universal law  

1. State maxim M: “I will do A (some action) in order to achieve P” 

2. Universalize M: In similar circumstances all rational agents adopt M and all rational agents know M is adapted 

3. Contradiction test: Does M lead to a contradiction? If yes, M=immoral; if no, M=permissible 

Contradiction-in-conception

M, when universalized makes the end/purpose one is trying to achieve impossible (ie self-negating)

Contradiction-in-will

M, when universalized, reveals the end/purpose to be rationally undesirable 

Formula of Humanity

Act so that you use humanity always as an end, never merely as a means  

• Ascribes F to all  

• Agent