Good will An introduction to the philosophy of KANT (1724-1804)

Good will 

An introduction to the philosophy of KANT (1724-1804) 

Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good. It is the same with the gifts of fortune. Power, riches, honor, even health, and the general well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness, inspire pride, and often presumption, if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these on the mind, and with this also to rectify the whole principle of acting and adapt it to its end. The sight of a being who is not adorned with a single feature of a pure and good will, enjoying unbroken prosperity, can never give pleasure to an impartial rational spectator. Thus a good will appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of being worthy of happiness. 

There are even some qualities which are of service to this good will itself and may facilitate its action, yet which have no intrinsic unconditional value, but always presuppose a good will, and this qualifies the esteem that we justly have for them and does not permit us to regard them as absolutely good. Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control, and calm deliberation are not only good in many respects, but even seem to constitute part of the intrinsic worth of the person; but they are far from deserving to be called good without qualification, although they have been so unconditionally praised by the ancients. For without the principles of a good will, they may become extremely bad, and the coolness of a villain not only makes him far more dangerous, but also directly makes him more abominable in our eyes than he would have been without it. 

A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favor of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations. Even if it should happen that, owing to special disfavor of fortune, or the niggardly provision of a step-motherly nature, this will should wholly lack power to accomplish its purpose, if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing, and there should remain only the good will (not, to be sure, a mere wish, but the summoning of all means in our power), then, like a jewel, it would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its whole value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can neither add nor take away anything from this value. It would be, as it were, only the setting to enable us to handle it the more conveniently in common commerce, or to attract to it the attention of those who are not yet connoisseurs, but not to recommend it to true connoisseurs, or to determine its value. 

Now we have to develop the notion of a will which deserves to be highly esteemed for itself and is good without a view to anything further, a notion which exists already in the sound natural understanding, requiring rather to be cleared up than to be taught, and which in estimating the value of our actions always takes the first place and constitutes the condition of all the rest. In order to do this, we will take the notion of duty, which includes that of a good will, although implying certain subjective restrictions and hindrances. These, however, far from concealing it, or rendering it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth so much the brighter.... On the other hand, it is a duty to maintain one's life; and, in addition, everyone has also a direct inclination to do so. But on this account the of anxious care which most men take for it has no intrinsic worth, and their maxim has no moral import. They preserve their life as duty requires, no doubt, but not because duty requires. On the other hand, if adversity and hopeless sorrow have completely taken away the relish for life; if the unfortunate one, strong in mind, indignant at his fate rather than desponding or dejected, wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it-not from inclination or fear, but from duty-then his maxim has a moral worth. 

For Kant it was clear that a moral action was one performed out of a sense of duty, rather than simply out of inclination or feeling or the possibility of some kind of gain for the person performing it. So, for example, if I give money to charity because I have deep feelings of compassion for the needy, I am, in Kant’s view, not necessarily acting morally: if I act purely from my feelings of compassion rather than from a sense of duty, then my action is not a moral one. Or if I give money to charity because I think it will increase my popularity with my friends, then, again, I am not acting morally, but for gain in social status. 

So for Kant the motive of an action was far more important than the action itself and its consequences. He thought that in order to know whether or not someone was acting morally you had to know what their intention was. It was not enough just to know whether or not the Good Samaritan helped the man in need. The Samaritan might have been acting out of self-interest, expecting a reward for his troubles. Or else he might have done it only because he felt a twinge of compassion: this would have been acting from an emotional motive rather than from a sense of duty. 

Maxims 

Kant described the intentions behind any act as the maxim. The maxim is the general principle underlying the action. For instance, the Good Samaritan could have been acting on the maxim ‘Always help those in need if you expect you will be rewarded for your troubles’. Or he could have been acting on the maxim ‘Always help those in need when you experience a feeling of compassion’. However, if the Good Samaritan’s behaviour were moral, then he would probably have been acting on the maxim ‘Always help those in need because it is your duty to do so’. 

The Categorical Imperative 

Kant believed that as rational human beings we have certain duties. These duties are categorical: in other words they are absolute and unconditional – duties such as ‘You ought always to tell the truth’ or ‘you ought never to kill anyone’. They apply whatever consequences might follow from obeying them. Kant thought morality was a system of Categorical Imperatives: commands to act in certain ways. This is one of the most distinctive aspects of his ethics. He contrasted categorical duties with hypothetical ones. 

A hypothetical duty is one such as ‘If you want to be respected, then you ought to tell the truth’ or ‘If you want to avoid going to prison, then you ought not to murder anyone’. Hypothetical duties tell you what you ought or ought not to do if you want to achieve or avoid a certain goal. He thought there was only one basic Categorical Imperative: ‘Act only on maxims which you can at the same time will to be universal laws’. ‘Will’ here means ‘rationally want’. In other words, the message of the Categorical Imperative is only act on a maxim you would rationally want to apply to everybody. This principle is known as the principle of universalizability. 

Universalizability 

Kant thought that for an action to be moral, the underlying maxim had to be a universalizable one. It had to be a maxim which would hold for anyone else in similar circumstances. You should not make an exception of yourself, but should be impartial. So, for example, if you stole a book, acting on the maxim ‘Always steal when you are too poor to buy what you want’, for this to have been a moral act, this maxim would have had to apply to anyone else in your position. Of course this doesn’t mean that any maxim whatsoever which can be universalized is for that reason a moral one. It is obvious that many trivial maxims, such as ‘Always poke your tongue out at people who are taller than you’, could quite easily be universalized, even though they have little or nothing to do with morality. Some other universalizable maxims, such as the one about stealing which I used in the previous paragraph, may still be considered immoral. 

This notion of universalizability is a version of the so-called Golden Rule of Christianity, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Someone acting on the maxim ‘Be a parasite, always live at other people’s expense’ would not be acting morally since it would be impossible to universalize the maxim. It would invite the question, ‘What if everyone did that?’ And if everyone were parasites, then there would be no one left for parasites to live on. The maxim fails to pass Kant’s test, and so cannot be a moral one. On the other hand, we can quite easily universalize the maxim ‘Never torture babies’. It is certainly possible and desirable for everyone to obey this order, although they may not. Those who disobey it by torturing babies are acting immorally. With maxims such as this one, Kant’s notion of universalizability quite clearly gives an answer which corresponds to most people’s unquestioned intuitions about right and wrong. 

Means and ends 

Another of Kant’s versions of the Categorical Imperative was ‘Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end’. This is another way of saying that we should not use other people, but should always recognize their humanity: the fact that they are individuals with wills and desires of their own. If someone is pleasant to you simply because they know that you can give them a job, then they are treating you as a means to getting that job, and not as person, as an end in yourself. Of course, if someone is pleasant to you because they happen to like you, that would not have anything to do with morality.

Philosophy and Suicide

Philosophy and Suicide

Suicide has always been one of the most important philosophical problems through the history of philosophy. The ethical debates about the permissibility of suicide have its own history, beginning with the Ancient Greece to our own age. 

The Pythagoreans thought that suicide is disrespect to the gods and therefore they rejected it. Like them, Plato opposed suicide and discussed the issue in The Phaedo. For him, we are properties of Gods and that’s why, we have no right to kill ourselves against their will.

After Plato, Aristotle opposed suicide since it was “contrary to the rule of life” for him, suicide was an offense against the state and an act of social irresponsibility because the city was thus weakened since, while you destroy yourself, you also destroy a useful citizen.

With the decline of the power of Greece and with changing values, and with the rise of individualism, the meaning of suicide also changed. It became an approved act as the right of each person to decide whether he should continue to live or not.

During this period, the philosophies of both Stoics and Epicureans, though through different reasons, approved suicide. Epicureans thought that after the pleasures of life were abated, there was no reason to continue living. Epicurus warned men that they should weigh carefully whether they would prefer death to come to them, or would themselves go to death.

The philosophy of Stoics, by disregarding the material values and emotions, taught that death was more worthy than living. Stoic philosopher Epictetus thinks that since what a person can endure in this life differs, when things get too intolerable, that person may wish for death and in that condition suicide is permissible. Stoicism taught that suicide is a natural way of ending life which is intolerable, that’s why, committing suicide under such conditions are accepted as an honorable and a brave act. 

During the middle ages, The Christians and The Muslims regarded suicide as a sin of the first degree;

For Muslims, they have always strongly condemned suicide. The QUR’AN, holy scriptures of Islam, expressly forbids suicide as the gravest sin, a more serious crime, in fact, than homicide. Muslims believe that each individual has his or her Kismet, or destiny, which is preordained by God and must not be defied.

For Christians, St. Augustine opposed suicide strictly and declared that it is the worst of all sins. He, too, thought that life is the gift of God and our sufferings are the will of Providence, rejecting life and shortening the decided time of suffering is a violation against God; it is not accepting the divine will. Also, believed in that God definitely forbids suicide with the commandment “not kill”. Committing suicide violates this commandment. Because, this commandment not only prohibited killing others, but it also grasped denying of oneself.

After him, Thomas Aquinas developed his anti-suicide arguments. In

The Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives three arguments against suicide.

For him, every sin is a sin against God, self or the neighbor; and suicide is a sin against three of them at the same time.

First, suicide is a sin against self because it is unnatural. His second argument against suicide is that it is a sin against your neighbor. It is a utilitarian type argument. Suicide is not justified because of the social harm that is done: it is an offense against community. That’s why, it is also against justice. The third argument is a theological one as suicide is a sin against God. Suicide is a sin because it is like stealing from God. Our lives are the properties of God and we are merely trustees of that property.

This attitude towards suicide has continued for centuries until the Renaissance. During this period, with the upheaval of the static social organization of the Middle Ages, philosophers could discuss the issue in a relatively free sphere. By the rising importance of freedom and individualism during Renaissance, some philosophers could even advocate the right to suicide.

In his essay “On Suicide”, David Hume took up the Aquinas’ argument “Every sin is against self, God or Neighbor,” and discussed whether suicide is a crime through these three cases. Hume followed these arguments against suicide and by refuting them one by one; he demonstrated that suicide is not a violation of our duties against God, society and oneself. He says that: “If suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty, either to God, our neighbor, or our selves”. Since it is not, suicide can be neither crime nor sin. 

He is also opposed to St. Augustine in that the commandment ‘not kill’ bans only killing others, and, there are no statements about the prohibition of suicide in the Bible. For him, under some conditions, human beings have the right to kill themselves. 

Like Hume, Schopenhauer considered the problem in a different manner: he regarded suicide as a personal right. In his view, a person who commits suicide doesn’t intend to rebel against God or violate something, but he only prefers death because the terrors of life outweigh the terrors of death.

The importance of Hume’s essay is that it shows the permissibility or impermissibility of suicide is not completely a matter of theology.

Unlike Hume, Kant provided an original anti-suicide argument. He opposed it in the name of freedom and autonomy. In his view, individual autonomy is the most important value and suicide is wrong because it is the loss of freedom.

In1895, William James the American Philosopher Psychologist, provided another anti-suicide argument. He delivered a now-famous address to the Harvard YMCA and spoke of what he called “the nightmare view of life.” entitled “Is life worth living?” James’s lecture was a classic example of positive thinking. He answered the title question with a resounding “Yes,” and told his audience: “Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help to create the fact.”

Today, the moral permissibility of suicide is accepted as an important applied ethical issue. It generally focuses on the problems of permissibility of suicide and of suicide intervention. Moreover, the discussions about morality of suicide has value since it gives new perspectives to the more contemporary and essential subjects like euthanasia and suicide bombers.

Euthanasia and suicide bombers are the most important issues of ethics under today’s conditions although their meanings are unrelated. While euthanasia is committed for merciful reasons, the latter is committed for destruction in the name of faith; still, both of them are voluntary acts to die. 

These issues need to be discussed by philosophers so that an ethical ground for them can be constructed. That’s why; studying the history of philosophical discussions about voluntary death will be beneficial for further discussions.

Philosophy and Suicide

Philosophy and Suicide

Suicide has always been one of the most important philosophical problems through the history of philosophy. The ethical debates about the permissibility of suicide have its own history, beginning with the Ancient Greece to our own age. 

The Pythagoreans thought that suicide is disrespect to the gods and therefore they rejected it. Like them, Plato opposed suicide and discussed the issue in The Phaedo. For him, we are properties of Gods and that’s why, we have no right to kill ourselves against their will.

After Plato, Aristotle opposed suicide since it was “contrary to the rule of life” for him, suicide was an offense against the state and an act of social irresponsibility because the city was thus weakened since, while you destroy yourself, you also destroy a useful citizen.

With the decline of the power of Greece and with changing values, and with the rise of individualism, the meaning of suicide also changed. It became an approved act as the right of each person to decide whether he should continue to live or not.

During this period, the philosophies of both Stoics and Epicureans, though through different reasons, approved suicide. Epicureans thought that after the pleasures of life were abated, there was no reason to continue living. Epicurus warned men that they should weigh carefully whether they would prefer death to come to them, or would themselves go to death.

The philosophy of Stoics, by disregarding the material values and emotions, taught that death was more worthy than living. Stoic philosopher Epictetus thinks that since what a person can endure in this life differs, when things get too intolerable, that person may wish for death and in that condition suicide is permissible. Stoicism taught that suicide is a natural way of ending life which is intolerable, that’s why, committing suicide under such conditions are accepted as an honorable and a brave act. 

During the middle ages, The Christians and The Muslims regarded suicide as a sin of the first degree;

For Muslims, they have always strongly condemned suicide. The QUR’AN, holy scriptures of Islam, expressly forbids suicide as the gravest sin, a more serious crime, in fact, than homicide. Muslims believe that each individual has his or her Kismet, or destiny, which is preordained by God and must not be defied.

For Christians, St. Augustine opposed suicide strictly and declared that it is the worst of all sins. He, too, thought that life is the gift of God and our sufferings are the will of Providence, rejecting life and shortening the decided time of suffering is a violation against God; it is not accepting the divine will. Also, believed in that God definitely forbids suicide with the commandment “not kill”. Committing suicide violates this commandment. Because, this commandment not only prohibited killing others, but it also grasped denying of oneself.

After him, Thomas Aquinas developed his anti-suicide arguments. In The Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives three arguments against suicide. For him, every sin is a sin against God, self or the neighbor; and suicide is a sin against three of them at the same time.

First, suicide is a sin against self because it is unnatural. His second argument against suicide is that it is a sin against your neighbor. It is a utilitarian type argument. Suicide is not justified because of the social harm that is done: it is an offense against community. That’s why, it is also against justice. The third argument is a theological one as suicide is a sin against God. Suicide is a sin because it is like stealing from God. Our lives are the properties of God and we are merely trustees of that property.

This attitude towards suicide has continued for centuries until the Renaissance. During this period, with the upheaval of the static social organization of the Middle Ages, philosophers could discuss the issue in a relatively free sphere. By the rising importance of freedom and individualism during Renaissance, some philosophers could even advocate the right to suicide.

In his essay “On Suicide”, David Hume took up the Aquinas’ argument “Every sin is against self, God or Neighbor,” and discussed whether suicide is a crime through these three cases. Hume followed these arguments against suicide and by refuting them one by one; he demonstrated that suicide is not a violation of our duties against God, society and oneself. He says that: “If suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty, either to God, our neighbor, or our selves”. Since it is not, suicide can be neither crime nor sin. 

He is also opposed to St. Augustine in that the commandment ‘not kill’ bans only killing others, and, there are no statements about the prohibition of suicide in the Bible. For him, under some conditions, human beings have the right to kill themselves. 

Like Hume, Schopenhauer considered the problem in a different manner: he regarded suicide as a personal right. In his view, a person who commits suicide doesn’t intend to rebel against God or violate something, but he only prefers death because the terrors of life outweigh the terrors of death.

The importance of Hume’s essay is that it shows the permissibility or impermissibility of suicide is not completely a matter of theology.

Unlike Hume, Kant provided an original anti-suicide argument. He opposed it in the name of freedom and autonomy. In his view, individual autonomy is the most important value and suicide is wrong because it is the loss of freedom.

In1895, William James the American Philosopher Psychologist, provided another anti-suicide argument. He delivered a now-famous address to the Harvard YMCA and spoke of what he called “the nightmare view of life.” entitled “Is life worth living?” James’s lecture was a classic example of positive thinking. He answered the title question with a resounding “Yes,” and told his audience: “Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help to create the fact.”

Today, the moral permissibility of suicide is accepted as an important applied ethical issue. It generally focuses on the problems of permissibility of suicide and of suicide intervention. Moreover, the discussions about morality of suicide has value since it gives new perspectives to the more contemporary and essential subjects like euthanasia and suicide bombers.

Euthanasia and suicide bombers are the most important issues of ethics under today’s conditions although their meanings are unrelated. While euthanasia is committed for merciful reasons, the latter is committed for destruction in the name of faith; still, both of them are voluntary acts to die. 

These issues need to be discussed by philosophers so that an ethical ground for them can be constructed. That’s why; studying the history of philosophical discussions about voluntary death will be beneficial for further discussions.