Premises:
1. Good
will can only be good
a. Intelligence,
wit, judgment, etc. can become bad and harmful with a bad will (7/393)
b. Gifts
of fortune can be used for good OR bad (7/393)
c. A
good will is good in itself, not because of what it effects or
accomplishes (7/394)
d. The
value of a good will is undetermined, it is merely good or not good (8/394)
2. Good
will must be justified, yet simple
a. Instinct
leads us to make decisions (8/395)
b. Reason
is based off our instinct and often gives us the results we most desire, not necessarily
what is always “good” (8/395)
c. The
more cultivated a reason becomes (or multiple reasons), the more complicated
the means for reaching the end become (8/395)
d. Nature
must take its course through instinct, and with a reason, but the reason must
not be stressed upon (8-9/395-396)
3. Our
duties are the foundation for acts of good will
a. We
have a duty to preserve our own lives (9-10/397-398)
b. We
should spread happiness to others as a duty to mankind (11/398)
c. An
attempt to secure happiness is a duty for all humans (12/399)
d. These
duties have no moral worth, but the actions carried through them do (11/398)
e. Man
feels a reason within him to counter these duties for personal benefit, which
would thus lead to bad will (16/405)
4. Good
morals construct our good will (i)
a. Moral
principles are guidelines for our reasoning
b. Without
prior knowledge of morals we would not be able to reason
c. Morals
lead us to reason for the benefit of others
5. Happiness
is achieved through good will
a. One
good will act will certainly lead to a positive end result (11-12/398-399)
b. An
overabundance of reasons for your actions will never fully satisfy you (12/399)
c. We
derive happiness from bringing joy in others, and good will is exercised
through a knowledge of a good end (11/398)
6. A good will does not always lead to a good end
a. Good
ends have good reasoning for the events that led up to the end result
b. Good
reasoning is derived from instinct and nature, but also from good will
c. A good intention does not always lead to a good end
First of all, great job on your outline! It was very organized and your thoughts were articulated clearly. However, I have a few points that could help your argument be even stronger and more thorough, as well as a few points where I was a little confused. When you say, "Man feels a reason within him to counter these duties for personal benefit, which would thus lead to bad will (16/405)," why does the personal benefit have to lead to bad will? What if the personal benefit is simply a satisfaction for "spreading happiness" to others? Feeling good about doing good is a natural reaction, and that shouldn't lead to a bad will for someone, right? Also, because your conclusion involves good will leading to a good end, you could mention teleology, as that means purpose or end. You could also mention Aristotle's view on virtue as the "activity of happiness," and recognize his argument that the activity and the reward are the same thing. This could pose a counterargument to your conclusion as his argument would mean that good will and a good end are simultaneous and don't have an affect on one another. Other than these points, great job and I enjoyed reading your outline!
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really good how you define good will in your first premise, stating how, like discussed in class, it is good in itself, regardless of the results it brings about (non-teleological). I think 1d, however, contradicts your premise. In this section of the text, Kant is saying its value is absolute, not undetermined. He says it “has its full value in itself” because it is good without qualification. Your second premise is a little confusing, but I definitely agree that it is important to discuss reason and instinct. I think Kant is saying the true function of reason must be to produce a good will, whereas instinct has to do with inclinations, which have purposes or ends like self-preservation or the attainment of happiness [pg. 9, sect. 396]. He then mentions duties; this should help to better connect your second and third premises. It might be helpful to include the three propositions Kant offers about duty to further support your argument!
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very well structured and clearly defined outline, good job on that. My main concern lies with your conclusion: I would change it to "a good will is more important than a good end." I don't see the cohesiveness (with your existing conclusion) that really ties the first two premises to the other four. Don't get me wrong, I don't have too knit-picking to do with your individual premises, they are quite strong, but I feel like the first two don't really add anything to your conclusion. Also, you might want to add and explicitly outline the importance of reason in good will. In your last premise, you state that "Good reasoning is derived from instinct and nature, but also from good will." I would have to disagree and say that it is rather the opposite, since Kant believes that good will is derived from reason. He states that reason is the most pure, unchanging and incorruptible tool of thinking, therefore one can always base good will off of good reasoning. Other than my little tweaks and minor issues, I think you formulated your ideas really well and it was a good post.
ReplyDeleteYour argument was very logical up to premise five. I had some trouble understanding how happiness plays a role in your argument. Your conclusion is: “Good will needs no knowledge of a good end,” but your points in premise five prove your conclusion false. In premise 5c you quote specifically that, “good will is exercised through a knowledge of a good end.” In itself, the conclusion and this premise are contradictory. So, essentially I am asking for some clarification on this point. Are there some cases in which good will is exercised with a false knowledge of a good end?
ReplyDeleteForemost, your outline is well structured. For instance, premise one defines good will being good in itself. However, it would also benefit you to explicitly say that good will is not determined by telos. A question arises in premise two when you say, “Good will must be justified, yet simple.” What do you mean by “simple” exactly? I know in premise two you discuss the role of reason, yet the word “simple” here is not clear. Are you suggesting good will is simple itself, if so how? In addition, I find a contradiction in premise three. For example, in 3a you suggest “we have a duty to preserve our own lives” yet you say that personal benefit leads to bad will (16/405). I have to disagree here, since you suggest it is our duty to preserve our own lives so how does personal benefit convey bad will if it is supposedly our duty? Lastly, if one performs an action by inclination alone, then Kant implies the action has no moral worth. Yet, consider Aristotle’s assessment of the formation of character through habit as explained in his Nicomachean Ethics. Isn't doing the right action by inclination a more reliable sign of the presence of an ethical character than by having to struggle in every decision to do the right action. For example, suppose an acquaintance struggles with herself not to start rumors about you but eventually decides not to do so. Should her actions be valued more than the actions of another acquaintance who is, by habit, fair to you?
ReplyDeleteI agree that you did a good job defining “good will,” but like Nicole said, I started to get confused once I reached premise five. I felt that you began to contradict yourself at times. I also think that you could have expanded on your premise about duty. Kant talks about these three propositions of duty: 1. in order to have moral worth, actions must be undertaken for the sake of duty alone, 2. actions are judged not according to the purpose they were meant to bring about, but rather by the “maxim” that served as their motivation, and 3. duties should be undertaken out of respect for the law (399-401). It might be helpful to include these to further strengthen your argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought this outline was very well done; good job. However, I do agree with Cristina about the propositions of duty. When I was reading, two statements stood out to me when Kant says, "to preserve one's life is a duty" (10, 398) and "to secure one's own happiness is a duty" (12, 399). Directly after these statements he explains the three propositions of duty to support these statements. Since you have these two claims in your outline, a great way to further your argument would be to add the propositions of duty as explanation. They could also connect your argument to happiness and a good end, but other than that, I really liked it.
ReplyDeleteThis outline was well organized and simple for the difficulty of the subject matter, but as Nicole and Cristina have pointed out, Premise 5 is wherein lies a contradiction to your conclusion. The first four premises follow the idea that good will is good as an activity and never as an end, but in premise 5, the wording of "Happiness is ACHIEVED through good will" is a little confusing. The basis for Kant's entire argument is that nothing is "morally valid" (12, 389) unless it is done in ignorance of the end result. However, in 5a and 5c, you say that happiness "will lead to a positive end" and that "a good will is exercised through a knowledge of good end." However, in your conclusion you state that good will has no knowledge of a good end. I don't understand the significance of happiness in this argument if happiness is not exempt from Kant's notion of duty over result. To fix this, I think you should negate premise 5 and explain that not even happiness should have a pre-conceived knowledge of the end. In short, we should not pursue happiness because we know that more happiness awaits us at the end; this is not morally valid.
ReplyDeleteHi I thought your post was very well-written and informative. I would change premise 1-C however because it seems to contradict with your claim that "Good will can only be good". 1-C however, says that the value of good will can be good or not good but cannot be determined. Also, I think i am confused on the wording of premise 5-C because it seems to be saying that good will is exercised with the knowledge of some sort of "good end". As your argument states, good will needs no knowledge of an end and is good in and of itself. Other than that, I thought this post was excellent and you did a great job synthesizing the text!
ReplyDelete