Scan barcode
A review by zachhois
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant
challenging
informative
medium-paced
I sought to find an analysis on fundamental morality as I attempt to grip the waves of civilization and geopolitical events.
Two main concepts I took away:
<b>The Good Will</b>
<i>"A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself.”</i>
This was something I found myself agreeing with after it was explained. I have been internally struggling between objective and relative morality. I was purposefully looking for a singular explanation on the definition of objective morality, and this is a compelling one. In asserting that the only true goodness is of the good will, the actions and respective consequences are removed from the equation. When I come to another question of relative morality, this is helpful on assessing its true merit. However, it also significantly reduces the amount of true "good." It was freeing seeing concepts as completely neutral. That is something I struggle with on a daily basis.
For example, power, neither good nor bad, can be used both positively and negatively. It is the intention behind its use, or the acquisition of it, that judge the action to be good. (even though it is silly to begin moral evaluation with empirical observation :) )
<b>Duty</b>
<i>"The question then is this: 'Is it a necessary law for all rational beings that they should always judge of their actions by maxims of which they can themselves will that they should serve as universal laws?' If it is so, then it much be connected (altogether a priori) with the very conception of the will of a rational being generally." </i>
While there are multiple facets of his duty argument, the one that stuck with me most was the applicable universality. While some "laws" we may abide by on our current path to a destination, in order to decide a moral law, it must have universality, regardless of ends and circumstances. This offers another way to assess moral quandaries in a (more) objective manner. However, even he says it may be impossible for pure virtue to exist in the world. It is our reason as rational beings that dictate these.
<i>Random musing</i>
While Kant recognizes us as rational, we are often acting irrationally. I am interested in further exploring the instances of irrationality and the propensity of some over others to act so. But even now, as I am thinking of it, there are few <i>purely</i> irrational actions. Often when someone is being colloquially irrational, they are just acting in a self-serving manner in which we disagree.
Two main concepts I took away:
<b>The Good Will</b>
<i>"A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself.”</i>
This was something I found myself agreeing with after it was explained. I have been internally struggling between objective and relative morality. I was purposefully looking for a singular explanation on the definition of objective morality, and this is a compelling one. In asserting that the only true goodness is of the good will, the actions and respective consequences are removed from the equation. When I come to another question of relative morality, this is helpful on assessing its true merit. However, it also significantly reduces the amount of true "good." It was freeing seeing concepts as completely neutral. That is something I struggle with on a daily basis.
For example, power, neither good nor bad, can be used both positively and negatively. It is the intention behind its use, or the acquisition of it, that judge the action to be good. (even though it is silly to begin moral evaluation with empirical observation :) )
<b>Duty</b>
<i>"The question then is this: 'Is it a necessary law for all rational beings that they should always judge of their actions by maxims of which they can themselves will that they should serve as universal laws?' If it is so, then it much be connected (altogether a priori) with the very conception of the will of a rational being generally." </i>
While there are multiple facets of his duty argument, the one that stuck with me most was the applicable universality. While some "laws" we may abide by on our current path to a destination, in order to decide a moral law, it must have universality, regardless of ends and circumstances. This offers another way to assess moral quandaries in a (more) objective manner. However, even he says it may be impossible for pure virtue to exist in the world. It is our reason as rational beings that dictate these.
<i>Random musing</i>
While Kant recognizes us as rational, we are often acting irrationally. I am interested in further exploring the instances of irrationality and the propensity of some over others to act so. But even now, as I am thinking of it, there are few <i>purely</i> irrational actions. Often when someone is being colloquially irrational, they are just acting in a self-serving manner in which we disagree.