According to Kant, the only wholly unconditional good is good will. The intent to do good can never be bad. Of course, actions committed with good intent do not always end well. However, Kant resolves this by declaring that we must differentiate between intent and result; after all, one can never know with surety what the end result of his actions will be. I find this to be a very fair idea, as those who attempt to do good, only to have some outside force cause their plan to backfire, do not deserve to be blamed for such unforeseen circumstances. For instance, there have been situations in which a person extricates an injured person from a wrecked car, merely trying to help, but being moved causes paralysis in the victim. The bystander had no way of knowing that that would happen, and would surely have not wished it. In Kant's view, although the person's actions did result in further damage, he is not at fault, and his initial good will remains good.
Kant also says that the best form of the unconditional good is that which is done "for the sake of duty alone." This is to say that good will expressed when it is not beneficial, or perhaps is even disadvantageous, to the agent is the highest good. So, using the same example, the act of helping an injured person from a wreck would become greater if the bystander had to go into a burning car (endangering himself) in order to extricate the victim.
While this certainly does sound more impressive, I'm not convinced that this act should be considered any more good than the first instance. During a previous class discussion, we seemed to have come to the conclusion that committing a good act that would provide one with a reward did not make the act itself any less good. Why, then, should committing a good act that has an accompanying penalty make the act any more good? For someone like Kant, with a concept as black and white as the moral imperative, this seems like a very circumstantial judgment to make. Also, to touch on another previous discussion, this idea does not mesh well with the concept that there is no selfless act; no matter how disadvantageous an act may seem, there is still a hidden benefit to the agent. With this in mind, how could anyone be ranked as committing this highest unconditional good?
While I do agree with Kant in that intent and result should be discrete, I don't think that acting "for the sake of duty alone" is superior to any other good act. How do you guys feel about this?
Allison,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for using my prior post about the "positive selfishness" to make your point. I feel honored :)
Personally, I agree with your point of view that, as you said, acting "for the sake of duty alone" is not better. But why is it not better? As I wrote in my last post, I believe devoutly that there is nothing like an action "for the sake of duty alone". Even if we think to act of duty alone, there is always some other reason behind it.
Let's stick to the example that you gave us: Everybody would agree that we have to safe this person and have to try to get him out of the car. But would everybody agree to do that, even if we bring ourselves in danger? Is it just because humans are selfish and don't want to bring them in danger for the sake of another person? Isn't that also a kind of duty - to safe your own life?
Maybe this example is a little bit too complex to make that point clearly, but I definitely agree with you in terms of having a problem to understand why "duty" is so much more important than "the good will"
Allison and Flo,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not think that "for the sake of duty alone" implies that an act is greater when the person doing said act puts him or herself in danger. I believe Kant is being just as black and white as normal in his statement. "For the sake of duty alone," to me, says nothing about the calculated risk being taken by the do-gooder. Kant would not differentiate between a man pulling a victim out of either a flaming or extinguished car, for the good will in his action is not made more or less good in proportion to its danger. Also, the point that Florian brings up ("isn't that also a kind of duty - to save your own life?") is very valid and I'm not sure if we can tell by just the small portion of Kant's work that we have read what he would have to say about the value of one's life over their peers'. You have me thinking...
Unless I'm mistaken, Kant does say that acting for the sake of duty alone is greater than an everyday good act. This doesn't necessarily mean danger but could be simple inconvenience, as we discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to my example, I do think that I need to read more to discover where Kant would stand on placing one's own survival ahead of another's. However, if we use a maxim such as "when someone is in mortal danger, you should save them" and apply it universally, to not save them based upon danger to yourself would be immoral.
Thanks for the feedback!
I disagree with the thought that committing a good act that is accompanied by a penalty is equal to those without. For instance with your example of pulling a person out of a car that is on fire, not everyone would be willing to put their life in danger for that of another. Only the person with the highest good will would put everything on the line "for the sake of duty alone." The example is a very extreme situation, but I believe that Kant's point is that the greater your good will is the more you will be willing to do for other's no matter what the effects may be for you; everyone has their limits on how far they are willing to go to help others, and as a result the lower your limits are the greater good you are willing to do.
ReplyDelete