Good will as the highest good

Ethics Workshop- Full texts in HTML format - free of charge

-->Overview -->Alphabetical list of all texts -->about this website -->Lexikon -->Home

Immanuel Kant: Good will as the highest good

Presented on the basis of the "Foundation for Metaphysics ofCustoms"

Quoted from: W. Weischedel (ed.): Immanuel Kant – Werkausgabe, Band VII
published by Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 3rd edition 1977
The Kant quotations were made more understandable by additions in square brackets to today's readers
 

Kant's appreciation of "good will"

In the first sentence of his "Foundation for the Metaphysics of Customs" (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation") Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) puts forward the thesis: "It is possible everywhere in the world, indeed at all to think otherwise of it, which could be considered good without restriction, as only a good will"(p.18). In the further course, Kant then comes to the thesis that good will is the highest good (p.22).

This position will be examined below.

To do this, the first thing to clarify is what the above thesis means exactly. Above all, the expressions "good will" and "without restriction" seem to be in need of clarification.

What does the term "good will" mean in Kant's work?

On the one hand, one finds in the "foundation" the explanation of the word "will" as "the ability to desire", i.e. as the ability to desire something. On the other hand, Kant also refers to the "ability to act according to the conception of the laws, i.e. according to principles" as "will" (p. 46). Only rational beings, to which Kant also counts man, have this ability.

Both definitions do not coincide. The "will" as a means of deprivation withholds wishes, goals, drives, etc. The "will" as the ability to act according to principles of reason, on the other hand, contains no such motives or." Inclinations," as Kant says.

Because of the importance of this point, a longer passage is used for this purpose.

"Every thing of nature works according to [causal] laws. Only a rational being has the ability [the ability] to act according to the conception of [moral] laws, i.e. according to principles, or [in other words: it has] a will.

Since reason is required to derive the [individual] actions of [moral] laws, the will is nothing but practicalreason.

If reason inevitably [definitively] determines the will, then the [those] acts of such a [rational] being, which are recognized [by reason] as objectively necessary [as required in substance], are also subjectively necessary [required for the subject]. ... The will is [in this case] a capacity to choose only that which reason, regardless of the inclination [of feelings and desires], recognizes as practically necessary [as commanded], i.e. as good.

The relationship of objective laws to a not entirely good will is presented as the determination of the will of a rational being by reasons of reason, but to which this will of its very nature is not necessarily obedient" (p.41).

Obviously, Kant understands "will" here as the ability to act according to the principles of reason. Man is an imperfect rational being in that in him the "inclinations" can also act on the will and counteract the determination of the will by reason.

The quote makes it clear what Kant means by "good will". For Kant, "good" is the will that which is determined exclusively by reasons of practical reason and not by inclinations.

Kant's Prerequisite for the Knowledge of Reason

However, Kant does not elaborate on how practical reason recognizes action as "good" and thus as imperative. Apparently, he is of the opinion that normal human reason already knows what is good or evil, because he writes that the philosopher can only draw the attention of the generally spread human reason to its own principle, "without teaching it in the least something new" (p.31). Kant apparently presupposes the recognition of the valid commandments of morality and does not question them.This is by no means self-evident for today's conditions, where there are sometimes profound differences of opinion on moral questions. For example.B reason tells us in the form of our conscience whether premarital sexual intercourse is against the precepts of morality or not?

In fact, there is no agreement between individual conscience decisions here. Thus, it remains undetermined which actions correspond to goodwill. Given different views on morally correct action, it was obviously not enough to have goodwill. In view of this situation, the right action must first be asked and an answer must be found.

What does Kant mean by the expression that something "can be regarded as good without restriction"?

Apparently, by the expression "something can be considered good without restriction", Kant means that something cannot cause damage or participate in any conditions of the same. Spiritual talents such as understanding and judgment or qualities of temperament such as courage and determination "are good and desirable in some intentions; but they can also become extremely evil and harmful if the will that is to make use of them is not good" (p.18).

The same applies to things like power or self-control. "The cold blood of a villain not only makes him far more dangerous, but also impedingly in our eyes even more despicable" (p.19)

The use of the words 'dangerous' and 'harmful' suggests that this is not just about moral good ('evil', 'despicable') but also about a general assessment. One could counter Kant that even a good deed in this sense is unacceptably good and that no situation can be imagined in which a good deed leads to something bad and causes or increases damage.

One could also argue against Kant that situations such as the following can also be remembered, in which goodwill causes harm and is by no means good:

Someone follows the (generalizable) maxim: "I help those who are in need through no fault of their own". He is now witnessing a traffic accident and wants to help the seriously injured driver. Erden pulls the injured out of medical ignorance from the destroyed vehicle. As a result, however, his internal injuries are aggravated and the driver dies within a short time of internal bleeding.

Unfortunately, Kant does not discuss such objections. However, one could argue that practical reason always includes the expediency of the required action, so that there can be no harmful actions done out of good will. This would mean, however, that the initial thesis would have to be reformulated to the effect that nothing can be described as good without restriction as a good and informed will.

How is the general value of an action measured?

Kant is of the opinion that goodwill in itself is to be highly valued and that the concept of good will is always at the top of the estimation of actions. Kant says that this term "already attends the natural common sense and does not need to be both taught and only enlightened" (p.22). That the decisive factor for the general value of an action is whether it comes from a good will – i.e. for Kant: whether it is determined by the commandments of reason – is not correct, as the following example shows.

The investigation and discovery of the cause of childbed fever by the doctorSemmelweis - regardless of the motives behind this good deed - is an act of the highest value, which has spared hundreds of thousands of women early death and hundreds of thousands of children orphaned. Thousands of nurses of good will could not achieve as much good through their self-sacrificing care as the doctor Semmelweis achieved with his discovery.

Nor is it clear why a father who renounces many things out of love for his children and provides for them well does not carry out an act as worthwhile as the father, who does not do the same out of inclinations out of "good will", which Kant means: out of respect for the commandments of reason.