Kant’s piece on good will and how that plays into good acts is an extremely interesting read. I was excited to read Kant because he is regularly mentioned on the tv show The Good Place. In this section, Kant is trying to find out why good actions have a specific sort of moral value. This value is not because the action is based on other things, but because it is good in itself. The book states, “A person who does the right thing for the right reason evinces what Kant calls a good will” (Kant). If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is not a morally valuable act. For instance, Kant uses the example of a politician whose end result is good, but the good only comes about by the politician being cruel to those around them. The end result is good, but the method is not. In deciding what counts as the right reason, Kant turns to the concept of Duty.
There are three reasons that someone might engage in a particular sort of action. Someone is compelled to do something “From Duty” because it is seen as the right thing to do. Another reason could be an “Immediate Inclination” or wanting to do it because it seems like the natural thing to do or because it brings joy to oneself to do it. Finally, there are actions that fulfill a “self-interest” meaning the only reason it is done is that it will help achieve a different goal the person has in mind (Kant).
Kant believes that the person who acts “From Duty” performs the most morally good acts (Kant). For instance, if someone loves children and decides to take care of a child, then they are doing it out of immediate inclination. If that person did not like children, they most likely would not take care of a child. On the other hand, if someone takes care of a child because they believe it is their moral obligation to do so, that act has more moral worth. Both the former and the later person have the same purpose, but their maxims are different.
The maxim section is not something I have a firm concept of, but this is my thinking. Someone’s maxim is how they believe they, and everyone, should behave on a daily basis. The maxim is made up of principles that everyone should be required to do regardless of if it brings pleasure to oneself. A person’s maxim is a sort of law, and that person should never break their own moral code that they have set for themselves.
This writing made me think of the Aristotle passage where he talks about how in order to become a good person, one must find pleasure in good acts and perform them. I’m wondering if finding pleasure in good acts makes them less morally good. If someone originally did not like volunteering with children but grew to love interacting with them, does that make their service less valid? This essay also made me think of spanking. Oftentimes, spanking is preceded with the phrase “This is going to hurt me more than it’s going to hurt you” Does this mean that it is an act commanded by duty? Ideally, the parent is spanking a child with good intentions (with the intent of making the child behave properly for their own good), and the parent also does not want to strike their child. Personally, I do not agree with spanking, but by Kant’s definition, is spanking a morally good act?
Kant, Immanuel. Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary J Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
