I asked a question yesterday about Immanuel Kant, Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, and now I have a new question.
I am writing a paper on how Kant is saying that inclinations shouldn't be involved in moral decisions, because inclinations do not lead to moral worth, and such. And I began to question why anyone would give up the strive for happiness by acting on inclinations to act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time wil that it should become a universal law.
And I can't find any evidence in Kant's work that is convincing enough to prove that it is better to give up the drive for happiness...
Can someone please help me? :)
Although brief, this outline of the groundwork should give you some ideas.
You have a difficult assignment. I personally never found Kant convincing on the purpose of man...good intentions are not enough of an argument for me.
Thank you so much for all your help! :) I apperciate it soo much!!
And I agree, he basically says that the good will is the only way humans will have moral worth, Duty + ~Inclination = Good Moral Worth. But then he says there is no way to tell if people are acting on pure duty... And then he rambles on about the kingdom of ends!
Argh :D
Certainly! Immanuel Kant's idea that inclinations should not be involved in moral decisions is a central concept in his ethical theory. To understand why Kant argues against the pursuit of happiness in moral decisions, you need to consider his notion of moral worth.
In Kant's view, moral worth is not determined by the consequences of our actions or by our inclinations, but rather by the motivation behind our actions. He believed that moral actions should be performed out of a sense of duty and based on principles that can be universally applied. This is known as the categorical imperative.
Now, to address your question about why anyone would give up the drive for happiness by acting solely on the maxim that can be universalized, it is important to note that Kant's focus is on moral worth and the inherent value of acting morally, rather than on personal happiness or desires.
According to Kant, acting on inclinations or pursuing happiness does not necessarily align with moral duty. Inclinations are subjective and can change from person to person, whereas moral principles should be universally applicable. Kant argues that if we base our actions solely on inclinations or desires, we are not acting autonomously but rather being driven by external factors.
Kant believes that true moral worth is only achieved when we act out of a genuine sense of duty, following moral principles that can be applied universally. By disregarding personal inclinations, we can ensure that our actions are not biased and are based on principles that are valid for everyone.
To find evidence in Kant's work supporting this idea, you should refer to his major work, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals." Specifically, look for sections where he discusses the categorical imperative and the concept of moral worth. Additionally, you may consider examining Kant's distinction between hypothetical imperatives (which are grounded in inclinations) and categorical imperatives (which are grounded in reason and morality).
By analyzing these sections, you'll gain a better understanding of why Kant argues against the involvement of inclinations in moral decisions and why he places emphasis on universal moral principles rather than personal happiness.
Remember, when writing your paper, it is essential to provide direct quotes or references from Kant's work to support your arguments and make your analysis more convincing.