In class we have started to discuss Kant and his belief that the only good thing without qualifications or restrictions is the "good will". Something that really stuck out to me today in class was one of the three propositions of duty that stated that an action is morally good not because it is done out of immediate inclination or self interest but because it is done for the sake of duty. The example given was that of helping an old lady across the street. It would not be seen as "morally good" if you help the lady across the street because you are suddenly overcome with sadness at how she is stuck on one side of the road and can not get to the other. It would also not be "morally good" if you helped the old lady across the street because you knew that she was rich and known for giving money out to random strangers. What would be "morally good" would be to help the old lady across the street because it's the right thing to do. In all of these examples, the old lady gets across the street so you would think that all of these are examples of a "moral good". No. In the first example, the person was overcome with emotions so it was an immediate inclination to help the old lady. The second example, even though the old lady was helped across the street, it was in hopes that she would give you money. The only example that was "morally good" was the final example where the person helped the old lady across the street because it was the right thing to do.
So I pose this question: Do you believe that in order for a deed to be morally good that the person has to have no immediate inclination (being overcome with emotions for example) and no self interest or do you believe that it doesn't matter as long as the end result is the same (the old lady gets across the street)?
If we threw out what Kant and went completely by my own personal feelings, I believe that as long as we get the moral end result. Without that moral boost most people would look at that old lady and say, "She will probably be fine, she can walk herself across the street." That little sense moral emotion is what gets people to do things in this would whether it be out of pity, greed, or sympathy as long as the end result is the same who really cares.
ReplyDeleteIn my honest opinion, I do believe that to be morally good there has to be no inclination. To be morally good, You must have the instinct of doing good without reward. In this world today, it is hard because people already believe in doing things just for the reward and it is bad. Just by having a little of that moral instinct, it can make people change their view of what is to be morally good.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. this reminds me of the saying "it's the thought that counts". If you gave someone a present for their birthday and they hated it, the thought alone you put into the gift makes your actions morally good. There were no inclinations because they hated the present, but it was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI think the reasons behind your actions do matter. Helping the lady because you want something in return is, of course, not good. I don’t think that it should be seen as something bad if you are helping her because you feel sad. You aren't expecting anything in return so you aren't doing it for the reward. Like you said, she should be helped simply because it is the right thing to do period.
ReplyDelete