Kant’s first message in “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of
Morals” is that people, who have a good will, are moral. Meaning that when someone makes an action
that is good it is only truly good if the motives behind that action are as
well.
There are many actions that are well looked upon in our
society. They create a kind feeling for
the person who does them and does a good to those who receive those actions. This raises the question, should a person not
make good actions if their motives aren’t pure and good? Would their ill motivated actions make them a
worse person?
If a person believed strongly in searching for a cure for cancer
but owned a cigarette manufacturing company would the action of donating money
to a search for a cure be good? As a
person who creates and markets cigarettes which increases the risk of cancer
can that persons motives be pure? According
to Kant the only way that person can truly be good in his actions is if that person
is not trying to subside grief of spreading cancer or using any consequences of
donating for selfish purposes, like publicity.
It would be very hard to have a good motive that isn’t dirtied by
secondhand motives for this person to donate that money. However, that money is good for that cause,
so should that person not donate it for those reasons?
There are also many actions that are not looked well upon by
society that are not at all good.
Actions that create bad consequences for everyone, except those who make
them. Would it be okay for someone to
make this kind of bad action if their morals are good?
If a person saw someone else drop their purse and they stole
that to buy food for their starving children would that be good because of its
motive, or would it be bad because it is a bad action to steal? Kant says that it is the good will that
matters. However, they are causing pain
for another person as a consequence by stealing as well as causing a good
action by supplying food for that person’s starving children. Should that person be able to steal just
because they have a good motive?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBryan, you ask a very important question in response to Kant's theory. It is a very hard question to answer I think. Though it may seem odd in some cases, I think for Kant our focus should be on the motive or intention, as you said. Thus, regarding the last scenario you asked about stealing the money for the good of the children that are starving, I think people are justified for stealing for their children because of the intent for stealing for their children. I know that seems odd that it is a way of justifying stealing because of the background of the person's intent. However, the problem is when the intent becomes a justification for larger crimes like murder. Would any intent or good willed motive justify taking the life of another person if we were to use Kant's theory that is based on motives?
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see with this sort of rationalization of wrong actions, Manali, is that where do you draw the line to something that is considered completely morally reprehensible? If you allow one crime to be justifiable morally, then I don't think there will be a way to stop crime if all acts are justified to a sense. On the flip side, while it may be morally justifiable to you to steal for the good of starving children because of the intent, it is also impossible to disconnect this action and intent with the action of stealing and doing harm to someone else. Quite the double-edged sword
ReplyDeleteThere is a prime diffference between intention and whether is legitimate or illegitimate, good or bad. Kant believes that there is an intention behind every action and we should judge that action based on the intention. To the point of your cigarette guy, the intention is to assuage his own feelings about smoking by donating money.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what are the implications if he doesn't donate the money? Possibly hundreds of people die. So here we have a balancing act. The best bet is to apply a utilitarian approach. Is it worth the questionable intentions to save people.
Kant would say no, but I say yes.