Introduction
This article is about Immanuel Kant's propositions. In this essay, we will discuss the meaning of those two arguments and what the messages are behind them. This also covers what good will is based on his first proposition. In addition, we will also discuss what the second proposition really wants to imply and how it is connected to his first argument, and we will also analyze the intention behind these propositions. This essay also includes Aristotle's argument about how he portrays life as being good. As we go further, we will see how this topic has been structured according to elaborating the paragraph based on Kant's first and second proposition, how they are connected to each other, how Kant's arguments support Aristotle's view, and if Aristotle can challenge Kant's arguments. And, last, we will discuss how these arguments of both philosophers can affect or influence the reader's minds and decisions.
Analysis of the first proposition
In his writing, claimed "it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken a good without classification, except a good will." This means that nothing in this world or even outside this planet can be classified or tagged good without the supporting reason behind being itself. No matter what kind, whether living or non-living, an object cannot be as genuine and completely perfect as good will, not necessarily human will, but any will that is rationally good. The essence of good will is about being pure, clean and clear. Unlike any other good things that we can typically qualify why it is good. Good will is not the action that a person can do, not even the effect of his actions; good will is the feeling in your mind that makes you wants to do well, the motive behind one's action. It does not focus on the moral worth of the purpose and desire of the action, not even on the outcome and effect of the duty. Its value wouldn’t go up or down depending on how useful or fruitless it was. (Kant 5) Good will cannot be opposed on the effect of a person's motive to do the action. A good will can either has a bad or good outcome, as the intention of a person depends on the situation there is. If it calls you to do the right thing, then it is the outcome of your good will, which will be classified or judged by the other people, it's not the will itself. It goes that if there is something that calls for you to do bad things for the betterment, then it is not your good will to have a better end result, it's your bad deed, which will be judged. This leads to the second proposition.
Analysis of the second proposition
The second proposition of Kant that says: "An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon". The second quote means that the outcomes that we want to have from our actions don’t give the action itself a moral worth. People were not really aware of that because what we normally do is we focus on the effects of one's actions, whether it's good or bad.
The classification as to being moral worth of one's action only focuses on the effects or outcome not the intention behind.
As being said, the second proposition mainly focuses on the action behind one’s intention in doing so. It means that if you took the bad action for good reason, then your actions will be judged as or classified as not moral worth. So the action’s moral value doesn’t depend on whether what is aimed at in it is actually achieved, but solely on the principle of the will from which the action is done, irrespective of anything the faculty of desire may be aiming at. (Kant 9) On the other hand, if you took the good action even if it’s for bad reason then, the action itself will be judged or classified as moral worth. Even if intention is purely for good, it doesn’t have the moral worth; it is the principle or maxim that influenced their motivation to take the action. Sounds odd, but that’s the explanation behind the second proposition.
The word happiness in the Ethics is a translation of the Greek term eudaimonia, which describes success and fulfillment. For Aristotle, this happiness is our highest objective. However, Aristotle is not saying that we should target our highest goal, but rather we should aim it happily, successful lives, but for us to be aware what this life consists of. Most people think of happiness as physical pleasure, like fame, fortune, or even honor. This is because most people don’t have the complete assessment of what true good life is. Aristotle’s Ethics doesn’t teach people how to be good, but rather to elaborate what is good. Happy is the highest good because once happiness is achieved; there would be no other things that a person will desire. The end of all action, individual or collective, is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. (Aristotle 4)
Like what Kant’s argument wants to portray, one’s motive will not be judged whether it is good or bad, it is still the effect of one’s action is going to be judged. Therefore, if your motive in doing your action will make you feel happy, no matter what the outcome is, then it supports Aristotle’s argument about achieving the highest good. That highest good pertains to the happy feeling that a person experiences after taking his action.
In this part, Kant’s argument only supports Aristotle’s argument in Ethics if the action is being taken in a good motive or purpose with a good effect.
Challenging Kant’s Argument
Aristotle’s argument talks about, in general, the importance of good. It covers views about being happy and having a good life and their importance. For Aristotle, having a good life means appreciating what we have in life like friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth that fit together as one. Being happy is important and considered as the highest good by Aristotle. The best and happiest life for the individual is that which the State renders possible, and this it does mainly by revealing to him the value of new objects of desire and educating him to appreciate them.(Aristotle 5)
Therefore, it is the most positive experience that a person can feel. Once the person reached the happiness, it means that he no longer needs anything in this world because there is already a feeling of success and achievement in his heart, and it’s final. For example, a person got promoted in his job, getting a higher position means higher paycheck. So if he is now earning higher, it means he can buy more things that he wants, and so on. Every reason of happiness means to another thing. Unlike if you already have happiness, you won’t want anything else. It is, just like the word, final.
The argument that Kant has can be challenged by Aristotle that is because his argument’s view focuses on being positive in life that can lead to the highest good which has happiness. While Kant’s argument sees life in a broader picture in a way that his argument is in the middle of possibilities of doing good and bad. If Aristotle is telling us not to target happiness, but to do things in happiness for a good outcome, Kant’s argument may somewhat looks like he wants to let us know that the good will can be applied whether or not your actions would result into good outcome. So if Kant is pointing the good will as the only thing that is good, no matter what the end is, or no matter what the person’s desire is, as long as you are motivated by your good purpose then it is fine.
As compare with Aristotle’s virtue that points happy as the final of its end, it shows that a person can be happy by doing things in a right way, to appreciate what you have, like friends, honors, pleasure, or wealth. Aristotle can challenge Kant’s argument for there are views on Kant’s that only focuses on moral worth that the action can get. I was not letting the people know the true meaning of what good life is. Though, somehow Kant’s argument supports some of Aristotle’s Ethics viewpoint to be fulfilled with your life and demonstrating good will.
Conclusion
The art of writing can be as influential and informative as reading a journal. Understanding the context of writing can learn many points and lessons. Depending on the reader people may demonstrate the important ideas and lessons that included therein, some people may find it good, some may find it negative. As what Immanuel Kant wants to portray in his two propositions, a person can decide whether or not he will commit bad deeds, as long as his intentions of doing it comes from a good will, then it him to choose his path. It also shows that people can be judgmental as they see what the outcome of your action is. They may not look at the bright side why you did it, but all they know is that it is moral worth if it follows one’s moral value and it is not moral worth if it just benefits the person who’s committing the action.
On the other hand, Aristotle’s point of view tells the people how life can be as good as Kant’s definition of good will. It pertains more on the moral aspect of one’s decision before he takes the action.
Being morally aware, to appreciate what you have, and by looking on a positive side are the things that he wants us to realize.
As a closing note, no matter how bad the situation could be, no matter how hard the times are, you have to be careful on every decision that you make. There is nothing wrong in desiring a success especially if it’s for your own good, but we have to make sure that we don’t cross on someone else’s path just to achieve what we want. People who surround us can be our enemies that will destroy our dreams, but think of them as your inspiration to appreciate what you already have and not to count what you still don’t have.
Works Cited
"Immanuel Kant - German Philosopher - Biography." The European Graduate School - Media and Communication - Graduate & Postgraduate Studies Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
"Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
"SparkNotes: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: Chapter 1." SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
"What is the Good Will in Kantian Philosophy?" YoExpert.com | Religion and Spirituality | Agnosticism and Atheism. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
"Within Reason - Moral Worth without Purposes (GMOM)." Within Reason - Dispatches from Later in the Enlightenment. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.
