Philosophy - Ethics
posted by Chelsey .
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!