The Good Will

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)?

Pros and Cons of Kant

From our discussions in class, I agree with Kant's philosophy that there are a universal set of laws that apply to everyone no matter the circumstances.  It was brought up that this could not be because certain circumstances permitted certain actions i.e. a soldier killing an enemy.  My rebuttal to this is based on somewhat on an infinite regress; if in fact there were a universal set of moral laws, in the case of the soldier killing the enemy, the enemy would probably not be an enemy if he or she had not already broken one of these moral laws.  Though this leads to a lot of finger pointing and leads back to an endless trail of moral law breaking, I believe that at the beginning of civilization there was a set of moral guidelines that were common among people, whether we were born with them or they were developed is for another debate.  The first time these moral laws were broken, a never ending chain of immorality was triggered which continues on today. So, the soldier would not have to kill the enemy if the enemy had not already been morally corrupted.

Kant also proposes a correlation between a good will and "duty"; to understand duty is essential to obtain a good will.  I understand one's "duty" is like his or her ergon.  Kant writes that these duties differ from individual to individual.  With that in mind, what keeps a person's duty from being a bad duty? With this bad duty, would that person's definition of a good will actually be a bad will?

The good will

After take notes in class about Kant, and after read his book: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I am able to talk a little bit about his ideas and beliefs. In my opinion, the most interesting subject that he touched was the good will. He believes and argues that the good will is the only thing in the universe that is always completely good. It is the only good thing without instructions and qualifications. Kant does not say that we cannot think about other things (pleasure, wealth, honor, virtue, etc) and understand them to be good. He is saying that if we completely think that is true from his perspective, the only thing that is truly good is the good will. To be clearer, if we think about some others good things such as intelligence and judgement, those are good things but if the will is not good, it can be use for evil as well for good. The will in itself is what decide how you are going to use your "talents". Some others examples: courage, resolution, purpose. Those are things that we can develop, but by themselves those things can be use for the bad. Someone who robs a bank use his courage to do it, and we consider that it is not good.

What makes the good will good? Well, according to Kant, we know if our good will is good because it is good itself and when we do not look at the consequences and effects to our actions, we must use only our willing. We should not have do anything for a reason, for a motive.

My point in this post is tho challenge you to think as Kant. Do you completely agree with his beliefs? Specially do you agree that the good will is the only good thing in the universe? Is it what determine our others actions and intentions? And finally, I would like to understand a little bit more about What duty is, since it is the answer in what makes the good will good.

Kant

Much like the Ancient Greeks, It seems as though Kant’s ideals of philosophy can be broken down into three different sects: Logic, Physics, and Ethics. At first these terms seem almost unfathomable because they seem so all encompassing within themselves. However, by breaking it apart it makes it easier to understand, as well as to study his view. Logic is defined as “the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning” by Websters dictionary. In class we said Physics was the “study of the natural worlds.” Both of these two factions a priori or not empirical, which pretty much means it is based on theory and pure logic, as opposed to observations. The opposite of this being a posteriori  or empirical, or based off observation and experience instead of pure logic.

An example of a priori would be: Green is a color.

An example of a posteriori would be: Grass is green.

I find it easier to understand logic and physics and how it can be considered empirical, however, When it comes to ethics it is a little more confusing.  Not that I disagree with Kant, but more that I have never really thought of it like this. Ethics is something of a gray area, right and wrong depending on you ask. But, to have a solidify answer of right or wrong is something that I find to be really interesting.  I am excited to see how Kant’s ideals are similar to the philosophers we have already studied, but even more the differences between them. I find the most mind boggling thing is that Kant did not happen until the 18^th century. That is such a wide spread of time between Plato and Aristotle.  I know there are many philosophers between, but  I wondered how the passage of time transformed the philosophical views. 

Happiness

What is considered happiness? Most all people have a different way of becoming happy. For some it could be helping the needy and giving back to their communities, but for others it could be receiving material things. According to Lucretius happiness is obtained by ataraxia (freedom from fear) and aponial (the absence from pain.) But Epictetus would say that happiness is to be in accord with the laws of reason and in agreement with nature. I would have to agree mostly with Epictetus's view of happiness. It is human nature to stress, become sad, or to grieve but know the limit to those things and do such in accordance with nature. So for example; if a family member passes away it is most certainly okay to be upset and grieve, but don't grieve so much that you go into depression. Anyone else side with Epictetus's view of happiness over Lucretius?

Lucretius and Epictetus

True happiness is a vague and overused term that has been stretched and misunderstood through the ages. What can we truly say is true happiness? For many happiness can simply mean getting a paid vacation, to others it may mean waking up to see the people they love right before their eyes. Though with Lucretius and Epictetus they have different definitions of what happiness truly means. For Lucretius happiness lies in having no fear and living everyday pain free. Whilst, Epictetus believes that principles and opinions are the only things that make us truly unhappy. The thing is that no matter what people say about happiness they have their different opinions on what it truly is. In my opinion happiness lies in a smile and good joke. In your opinion what does true happiness means to you. How do you feel about Lucretius and Epictetus' views on happiness.

Lucretius: Stoicism

Lucretius created this strange theory referred to as Atomism. He tells us that everything, including ourselves, is made up of many atoms. He believes that since we are made up of this physical stuff that once we die our consciousness ceases to exits therefore we should not fear death. With this he along with other epicureans believe that to attain happiness one must train themselves to desire nothing but what is natural and necessary for human life. Plato would argue this concept as taking away from part of the soul, the spirited part. Platos philosophy says in doing this it would cause unhappiness and I agree. The pain one may feel is subjective according to the type of pain it is. The concept of accepting things as "how they are" is almost inconceivable. It would be possible maybe a thousand years from now that perhaps if stoicism were adopted and a loved one passed away there would be no tears or sadness because they've come to terms and realize that this is normal and just life therefore no reason to be sad. But I am curious about the thousand years leading up to that point. This concept is unimaginable due to the amount of emotions that have been instilled in us since the creation of man. The idea of training yourself to prevent pain and to desire nothing but what is natural and necessary seems almost as a utopia, where everyone is happy because there is no "pain" in their lives. I find this concept interesting on the fact of how strange it really is.