Kant On Morals

This essay explains Immanuel Kant's Distinction Between acts that are right and acts that are morally worthy and supports his argument on the significance of motives and role of duty in morality. I do this by first stating why we should use a priori1 reasoning when deliberating if an act is morally right. Next I state how to apply reason to moral deliberation. This is done by examining formulations of the categorical imperative and using examples of the Ð''Universalizability' test. This gives me the groundwork from which to compare acts that are right and acts that are morally worthy. I do this through Kant's Ð''Shopkeeper'2 example. Once the distinction is clear I provide an argument for why a rationally guided will should motivate our actions, and why a person who acts out of duty not in accordance to duty is morally worthy.

Before I can explain the distinction between right and morally worthy I first explain how to decide if an act is morally right. Kant was a moral absolutist. This means he believed that actions are either morally right or morally wrong3, regardless of the context of the act. This also means that because it doesn't depend on who it is, when it is or where it is it can apply to everyone. According to Kant we should use a priori reason, which means it does not use empirical data to inform it, to determine if an intended action is morally right. This must be done because we all have different experiences, goals and desires, and if morals were based on them all concepts of morally right or wrong would be different. An example is saying that lying is morally wrong because your mother said so or because it hurts to be lied to, this also means that lying could be right if your mother said so or if you never experienced being lied to. Therefore to get moral laws we must use a priori reason. And since a priori reason is possessed by everyone, and it is not based on experience, desires or goals, the discovered moral law is absolute, unconditional and applies to everyone.

When you apply reason you create a statement or law on how to act called an imperative. Kant distinguishes two types of Imperatives that reason creates4, Hypothetical and categorical. If you wish to fulfil a desire or goal, a hypothetical imperative is formed. For example, if I want to buy a house I ought to determine which house I can afford. But, as shown above, moral laws are unconditional. Therefore moral deliberation provides a categorical imperative which does not aim or depend on a desire or goal to be relevant. For example, you ought to do X5.

Kant provides various formulation of his categorical imperative. The first formulation is known as the formula of universal law:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"6

What this quote means is that before we commit any action we ought to contemplate it to see if it can be universalized. This process of contemplation is called the Ð''universalizability' test, if the intended action passes the test it becomes a moral law, it is morally right and it is our duty to do it.

As an example of the test Kant uses the act of false promise making7. To test the act of false promise making you turn the action into a maxim or rule to follow. The maxim or rule of making a false promise would be Ð''I ought to make false promises'. Then you universalise the maxim. The universal maxim of false promise making is Ð''Everyone ought to make false promises'. If the action does not contradict itself or go against natures laws it has passed the test and it is morally right and it is our duty to do it. In this example, If everyone makes false promises no one would believe the promise in the first place. This is called a contradiction of conception8, which means if the maxim was universalised it would undermine the basis of its existence. And therefore it is not a moral law because it contradicts itself. On the other hand if you test the act of keeping promises it passes the test and is therefore morally right and it is our duty to do it. Kant also separates duties into perfect and imperfect duties9. Perfect duties are duties that can always be satisfied. They are also very straightforward in what they prohibit. For example telling the truth is considered a perfect duty because it is possible to always tell the truth. And if you don't fulfil it you are breaking it. Imperfect duties can never be completely fulfilled and require judgement. An example is Ð''one ought to be charitable'. This action can be universalised but never be fulfilled 100% as there are always more people in need and you must choose who to help.

Now I explain the distinction between an act that is right and morally worthy act. For an act to be morally worthy it must be done out of good will and for no other reason. A good will is a will that is motivated by duty, not in accordance with duty. Kant uses an example of a honest but self interested shopkeeper. Imagine a shopkeeper who charges all his customer equally and does not deceive anyone. All his actions can be universalised, which means he is doing the right thing. But, he is not doing the morally right thing out of duty because he has not contemplated his actions. He is doing the right thing in accordance with duty, because he fears retribution or because he wants everyone to think him fair so he gets more business.