Morality depends on motives.
When assessing the morality of an action, it is generally argued that the consequences should determine whether or not the action is moral or immoral. However, Kant found this argument skewed because, as he claimed, one cannot always be in a position to tell what the outcomes of the of their actions are. Whereas, using a practical method of judging, an effort would just be deemed as amoral or moral under the consequences, even if it is not.
Therefore, it is difficult to determine the morality of the action, especially without paying attention to the motives. For instance, if someone does something that has a negative consequence, we would be quick to judge the person as immoral. However, if we were to pay attention to what led the person to commit the act, then we may be in a better position to judge. Likewise, if an activity that is considered moral such as a donation to a charity, without looking at the motives, we would be quick to recognize the action as noble. But if the person had ill reasons riding on the action, then we would arrive at an accurate conclusion. According to Kant, there are several motives that we should consider before judging an action as either moral or immoral.
The goodwill
In this case, Kant refers to doing good without qualification.
Many good things can be used for immoral purposes. For instance, wealth being used to undermine others or intelligence in the hands of a criminal. These, according to Kant, do not qualify as good. Therefore, there is only one good, “the goodwill”. He defines a perfect will as ” a perfect will is the intention to act coupled with all the powers at your disposal. If someone saw a wrong and did nothing about it, then this is not goodwill. However, if the person attempted to the right the wrong, even if they are prevented from reaching their goal, they are still considered good. There is no circumstance in ‘good will” that would justify one to say that it was better if the person lacked good will. For Kant, “good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply under the volition.” This is because despite there being situations where good people are manipulated and their good nature misused by corrupt people, it would still not be right for someone to regret the good will.
Acting from duty
According to Kant, moral action has to have been done from a sense of duty. In this case, duty is” the recognition that you are under a moral obligation, an obligation to do what is right’. Such acts can can be interpreted as acting per a general rule of law. However, this would also imply that our actions are dictated by others, which Kant seems to portray as not a good measure of morality. It is not moral if our efforts were as a result of some else’s threats. One’s actions have to be motivated by their sense of right or wrong. “Now an acct done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and with it every object of the will, (Blocker, et al., 306).
Thus for one to determine the principles governing their actions (Maxim). If we realize the maxim of our actions and we apply it to everybody affected. If the results are still moral even after the application, then they qualify as noble. However, if we universalize our actions and the results contradict itself, then it is amoral. For instance, if we decide to lie about being able to pay a debt, then applying it to everybody means that we should be able to keep the promise of paying back the money.
The idea of analyzing the maxims behind our actions, applying them universally to determine their morality, can be divided into two: hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives follow the “If…then” rule. Where the word, ” if”, presents a condition that the truth is dependent upon. The imperative, on the other hand, is synonymous with commands; the utcome of the actions is a command, based on the acceptance of a condition.
However, there are some actions that might be hard to determine using the maxim and universality. For instance, Kant peruses the argument of whether it is moral for one to commit suicide when faced with difficult times. Morally and according to law, this is considered wrong as it involves harming and taking away a life. Would his action go against the universality of taking care of his own life? It could also be argued ha the man is justified because he wants to shorten a life that no longer gives him satisfaction (Blocker, et al. , 309).
He also looks at a case of someone whose circumstances force him to borrow some money knowing well that he cannot payback. For him to get the money, he might have to lie about his ability to repay at a definite time. Consequently, despite knowing that he requires t be truthful, he can apply the maxim of universality and to conclude that everyone would look for a solution for themselves to get out of a difficult situation. This makes it moral.
Thirdly, Kant explores a situation where a person who is naturally talented decided to develop the talent and be useful to society. This is a moral and rightful duty. However, if he chooses to neglect his duty and pursue pleasure rather than suffer trying to work on his talent. Does his maxim of neglecting his natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, also concur with duty? (Blocker, Et. Al,310)
Moreover, when a wealthy person who is in a position of helping others opts not to. He might decide that that is not his or her concern. He might be right morally because by denying the help, he does nothing to make the situation any worse. However, he would be against the universal law of helping others but also in contradiction of self-love as he would be depriving himself.
For Kant, morality can only be arrived at in a categorical imperative. This is because it is not conditional, for instance, telling the truth regardless of the consequences. In this case, honesty proves to be the overriding moral impetus, irrespective of the trouble that the action will lead to.
From Kant’s definition, three ways of identifying actions as moral or otherwise. Firstly, an action is moral if the maxim on which it is based can be universalized. Secondly, an action can be moral if and only if it is autonomous and, lastly, if the act treats persons as ends in themselves). In other words, “an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined. Therefore, it does not matter whether the action committed seems good or bad at first. The principles/ maxim behind it should be the deciding factor for its morality (Blocker, et. al,309).
In conclusion, many actions can easily fall into the three categories given by Kant: the maxim, universality, and autonomy. However, some actions, due to their nature, cannot be considered as universal laws of nature without contradiction. Therefore, all duties depend on the motive rather than the outcome.