Kantian distinction between action done in accord with duty and action done from duty
During the formulation of universal law, Immanuel Kant established a distinction between actions done from duty and actions done in accord with duty. Actions from duty are those motivated by an individual’s desire to do his duty; the actions, however, are not in line with the requirements of morality. In such a situation, the individual is mistaken about what his duty entails. The individual intends to do what he believes is his/her duty; his accomplishment of the task is an action from duty whether it is wrong or right. The person is unaware of the oral facts he should consider in the context of his actions. According to Kant (1785), actions done from duty conflict with duty.
In reference to the context above, the fact that the person is mistaken about his duty shows that he did not act in accord with duty. He may do something morally wrong despite his belief that he is doing his duty, and using the correct moral judgment. The distinction shows that according to Kant, immoral actions are actions are actions based on maxims that cannot be universalized without contradictions. Kant’s ethics provides a challenge with reference to the existence of actions that are from duty but not in accord with duty. It creates a conflict between the requirement that moral judgments be autonomous and the requirement that they are universal. In Kant’s opinion, an action that is in accord with duty is a morally correct action.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
In Kant’s moral philosophy, he argued that moral requirements focus on a standard of rationality known as the Categorical Imperative. It is a form of obligation that unconditionally demands a person does an action for its sake. It is an absolute moral demand expressing moral obligation. Its validity does not depend on a motive or end. It provides a means for people to evaluate their moral actions and establish moral judgments. It is moral procedure useful in the evaluation of actions for moral relevance. The procedure involves three steps. First and foremost, a person forms a maxim. A maxim is a rule or principle on which the person acts (Kant, 1785). The second step involves imagining a world where the maxim is the ground rule everyone follows. The third stage involves checking to see whether the maxim generates a contradiction in the world.
Application of Kant’s Criterion of Universalism
Kant’s criterion of universalism depends on the concept of good will. He stated that a good will is intrinsically good; its value remains independent of external relations and is self-contained (Kant, 1785). Thus, the value of goodwill does not depend even on the outcomes it produces due to human actions. The concept supports the universal law through the provisions of Kant’s moral theory. The deontological theory states that actions can be considered morally right in reference to their motives. The motives must occur from duty instead of inclination. The approach can help in analyzing the statements discussed below. In reference to each statement, it is vital to note that morally right actions are the actions in which a person’s determination to act in accordance with duty trumps his/her self-interest or the obvious desire to do otherwise.
Never say ‘I love you’ to someone unless the person says it to you first.
It would not be rationally consistent to universalize the maxim; this is because it presents a situation that is contradictory to itself. The principle would most certainly undermine itself if all people followed it without exception. The expression of emotions such as love is subjective. But, if everyone lived by the maxim above, no one would be able to express their love for other people. The world would be a place with no expressions of love and would hinder people’s right to receive and express love for one another. Everyone has an imperfect duty of loving other people.
Always pay your debts on time.
It would not be rationally consistent to universalize the maxim. When a person takes a debt, he/she is expected to stand by the promise made on when to repay the debt. Choosing not to pay the debt on time, when one can, is morally wrong. It is a violation of the person’s perfect duty through the breaking of a promise. Universalizing the maxim above would not create any contradictions. The moral worth of the maxim would encourage people to honor their debt promises. The only situation it would not apply to is if the person was genuinely unable to repay the debt on time. Individuals must ensure the deduction of their actions from principles depends on reason (Kant, 1785).
Never help someone out unless you get something in return.
The maxim in the situation would be that it is permissible to avoid helping others even when you can unless you benefit from your action. In Kant’s view, no direct contradiction would result from someone deciding not to help another person. However, the maxim would not be universalized due to its lack of moral justification. Such a rule of conduct cannot be universalized because the person may find himself in need of help in the future; he would wish to receive help without the giver wanting any form of benefit. Thus, people have an imperfect duty not to act selfishly in situations where the person is in a position to help.
Cheat on your tests whenever possible.
The maxim of this action is that it is permissible to gain an unfair advantage during a test through cheating. Thus, in reference to Kant’s views, making such a maxim universal law would be self-defeating. The entire value of a test is to determine the extent to which a student grasped and understood the learning content. If the condition is ignored, the issuing of tests would be ineffective in testing students’ levels of comprehension. The test would fail in meeting its purpose. The contradictory nature of the maxim shows why no one would will it to be a universal law. Thus, every student has a duty not to cheat in tests even when opportunities present themselves.
When in college, do the work when the course is in your major or on something you’re already interested in.
The maxim in the situation does not involve other persons. It focuses on an individual’s actions and the implications they have on him. Doing the work on one’s major or something of interest only would limit the scope of the student’s learning; thus, this hinders the amount of knowledge and skills acquired. An individual should focus on all his learning areas for better grades and benefits from the learning experiences. According to Kant’s view of moral obligation, it would be contradictory to universalize such a maxim. It is because every individual has the perfect duty to him/herself to maximize opportunities and knowledge in order to fulfill one’s natural abilities.
If you are happy and you know it, clap your hands.
The maxim shows that it is permissible to secure and show one’s happiness. According to Kant (1785), it would be rationally consistent to universalize the maxim. Discontent with one’s situations, anxieties, and challenges presents a temptation to transgress the duty of securing one’s happiness. Happiness gives the will to endure challenges. It also allows individuals to share their happiness with other people. Thus, the statement above depicts the universal need to promote and secure happiness.
Conclusion
Kant presented an intriguing view of life focused on moral values. The moral value of any action lies in a maxim or formal principle; this is the general commitment to choose an action because it is one’s duty. Thus, duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law. In reference to Kant’s views, the ultimate principle of morality is an abstractly conceived moral law. It guides people to the right actions in regard to all possible situations. People should act according to the maxims they wish other rational people to follow. It would make their actions based on a universal law.
References
Kant, I. (1785). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (Translated by Abbott, T. K.). Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
