Prompt:
Kant writes: “Autonomy of the will is that property of it by which it is a law to itself
independently of any property of objects of volition. Hence the principle of autonomy is: Never
choose except in such a way that the maxims of the choice are comprehended in the same
volition as a universal law [441].” Explain what Kant means by each part of this quote and how
it relates to a good will, human dignity and the realm of ends,
Essay: (Please paraphrasing the sentences as much as possible and write a 200 words conclusion
paragraph. Thank you!)
Immanuel Kant, in his book “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”,
tries to build a system for moral philosophy. Morality, for Kant, has to be judged based on an
individual’s subjective will. The only thing that we are able to control is our intention. We have
to think whether the thing we are doing is a universal law and what is the consequence if
everyone else intended to do the same. Intending to find the objective moral law, Kant brought
up many concepts such as good will, human dignity and the realm of ends.
A good will does not relate to the effects of an action, nor influenced by outside standard.
Any empirical effects that the will causes should not affect how people judge its morality.
Similarly, a good will does not necessarily cause good effects. For instance, the fact that a
salesman chooses to sell his product at a reasonable price and never fool his customers cannot
prove that he has a good will. His choice to sell products honestly might be because his father
forces him to do so. Maybe he finds out it is the best way to earn money in the short term. Or, it
is simply that he does not care how much profit he can earn. Either way he is doing his job out of
his selfish outlook. Only when the salesman is intentionally willing to sell his product honestly,
he can be counted as possessing a good will. In other words, when the salesman acknowledges
the value of honesty, his decision to obey honesty can be viewed as good will. A good will, for
Kant, should be the only thing that can be called good without qualification. The will is good is
simply because of its virtue of the personal volition. In other word, it is good in itself. Whether
an action is moral depends on whether the person has the good will while doing it.
The multiple choices that salesman has implies that the will has the capacity to adopt one
action over another. Different will might cause different actions, and therefore engender multiple
effects. Since Kant believes everyone is a rational moral agent, he assumes that these agents
know the effect of their actions and is able to access the moral values of the actions reasonably.
In the process of making rational choice and exerting will, individuals have their own “subjective
principle of volition,” which is called the maxim, therefore, is the rule that the will acts
according to. Each individual has their own principle to assist them making choices, controlling
reason, and commanding them to act accordingly, which shows the diversity of volition.
Since maxim is subjective, however, it cannot be used as an objective standard to judge
morality. To find the unconditional good, Kant brought up the concept of the moral law to
measure the moral value of the will. Moral law is the consensus that defines what is moral
behavior and what is not. It creates genuine moral obligation that postulates what people should
act. To make it universally applicable to all rational creatures and acceptable to every human
being, the principle needs to be a priori, free from all empirical influence, since any empirical
reference can harm its objectivity. This objective principle is shown in the form of imperatives,
which expresses the relationship between objective laws and human will. There are two kinds of
imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperative is the command of reason that
constrains the will as a means to achieve empirical goals. For example, a person takes care of a
baby for free, because he merely wants to stay with the baby or increase his happiness. Then his
behavior can be viewed as hypothetical imperative, because the value of his action is built on the
empirical benefits. To fulfill his purpose to touch a baby, he takes care of the baby. His action is
not commanded absolutely and universally applied, because it is just a replaceable means to
achieve his purpose without intrinsic value. Without the desire to achieve his goal, the
babysitting would be pointless to him. In contrast, categorical imperative is the command that
determines the will without reference to another end. It is objective necessity in itself, resting
solely on a priori ground.
Duty, therefore, is a practical and unconditional necessity that can only be expressed in
categorical imperatives. Any application of the categorical imperative must contain the principle
of duty. Only in this way, it can create a law for all human will that is not based on any empirical
interest or benefits, and, therefore, is unconditional. In this sense, the will becomes the faculty of
acting according to the conception of law. A good will, therefore, must be the volition to act with
respect to moral law. To possess of a good will, people need to appreciate the necessity of
categorical imperative and their ability to decide their own end. Although people tend to be
distracted by inclination or personal desire, if they want to be moral, they have to let reason
determines their will and act for the sake of duty.
The ability to determine for oneself, in Kant’s notion, is the human dignity. This ability
of self-determination means that “man or any rational being exists as an end in itself.” In other
words, rational being are able to step out of the causal chain, acting according to his own will,
rather than simply reacting to other events. The capacity to determine his own will is not
relational, but has objective ends, possessing its intrinsic worth, since it does not relate to any
empirical end. This ability to determine his will is called the autonomy of will, which is the basis
of the dignity of human and of every rational being. Because of this valuable quality, an
individual is only subject to the law of his own giving, though it appears that he is bounded by
the outside standard. An individual only binds himself to the law that he accepts. He acts
according to his own will, which he designed out of the respect to the moral law. In this process,
a rational being is not only the subject but also the legislator of his moral obligation. He is able to
acknowledge the freedom of his will, realize the value of duty, and then acting out of respect to
categorical imperative.
In conclusion,
Purchase answer to see full
attachment