I will examine the following positions presented by Kant: Actions only have moral worth if they are done from duty and reason is the sole source of morality. By examining the works of Kant, one can come to the general conclusion that Kant finds the motivation behind actions to be the qualifier as to the morality of the actions. Kant claims that when duty is the motivation of an action, that action can be found moral.
Kant sets forth in his works that actions based from duty are the kinds of actions that are good. We have a duty to moral law and by using the categorical imperative we are able to discover that moral law. Once we have established a moral law for a given circumstance, we have a duty to uphold it. Any actions that are done with any motivations other than the duty to the moral law are not moral and are not demonstrating good will. The categorical imperative provides a guide for the maxims that are to outline what it means to act morally. “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (277). The categorical imperative sets forth the question: If this action were to be repeated by anyone, at anytime, would I find that instant to be moral also? This makes me think of the science of morality, to prove an action moral it must be repeatable. If you can answer that question in the affirmative then you have created a moral law. Kant provides two tests to make a greater examination of maxims for the categorical imperative. Now that the moral law is found, our actions ought to be motivated by respect for the moral law which is what Kant would call duty. Kant would say that actions made with respect to this duty are what make the will good. Kant makes it clear that while acting in accordance with duty is good and acting with only respect to inclination is not.
Kant finds that the enemy of duty is inclination and emotion. Duty, as described by Kant, is entirely influenced by reason. However, inclinations and emotions are most often made entirely in the absence of reason. Kant finds that emotions and inclinations have the ability to replace the motivation for our actions and then these actions are found to be immoral because they are made in the absence of duty. Many people might argue that the ends justify the means; however, Kant strongly disagrees. Kant holds that a combination between the motivation and the actual act are what makes our lives just. The motivation doesn't necessarily justify the means, but the means cannot be justified without proper motivation. It is clear that Kant agrees that proper motivation is respect for duty. Reason, as far as we know, is the unique ability that humans have that no other form of live has. And it is that ability to reason that allows us to use and understand the categorical imperative. We use reason as a tool to understand our duty through the categorical imperative and that is why reason is the source of morality.
Kant makes it very clear that reason and duty are the only sources of morality in his second proposition. The principle of volition plainly states that actions ought to be “done without regard for any object of the faculty of desire.” (276) I believe Kant would find actions to be moral-less. That is to say, actions alone cannot have a moral worth assigned to them because the actions themselves are neutral. Kant assigns every bit of morality to the reason and the motivation behind the action. It is clear that Kant places the moral value on the motives of the individual or groups instead of the end result. As long as the motivation is to uphold the moral laws founded by the categorical imperative, the actions are moral. Even if an action were to be done without a consequence of any sort, but the action was performed with complete disregard to the moral laws observed by society, that action would be found to be immoral. This is a good way to demonstrate what a duty is and how Kant shows that it is important to have duties. A duty is when you have an obligation to hold certain motivations. For Kant, a lack of motivation or improper motivations cannot lead to a moral action. If an action is made with improper motivation (something other than respecting the moral laws) it will be judged immoral. However, if actions are made in a void of motivation it is not judge to be immoral, it is held neutral. Now we see that we have a duty to act in accordance with the moral laws observed by society. The motivation to uphold the moral laws is not just one motivation; it ought to be the only motivation. The concept of a duty can be compared to a very specific obligation. Duty implies that it is the one and only qualifier.
