Kant believes that an act has a moral worth only if it is performed out of a sense of duty since his primary premise of his ethics is “what ought I do?” (pg.176). Kant basis his principles of moral ethics on rational procedures and distinguishes the concept of duty from the “self and others” (p. 177) asserting that all actions must be performed only out of a sense of duty to acquire some worth and appreciation from the moralistic point of view. Kant also asserts that duties can be “perfect and imperfect” (p.178). Kant asserts that in doing an action it is not important to consider the desires but rather the belief that the action is right and adheres to the moral law.
Thus, Kant implies that for an action to be affirmed moral, it is not sufficient for it to originate from noble inclination or disposition, only from the sense of duty or good will. Kant also argues that it is not important for the action to be accomplished in its purpose, the fact that it has been done with a true sense of duty and good will makes the action morally acceptable. Kant implies that the consequences of an action cannot judge the morality or motive of an action and that even actions which produce good results are not moral, if they have not been performed out of a sense of duty but with some underlying motives. According to Kant, duties which are perfect are “complete” and examples of such duties include “refraining from false promising, refraining from coercion and violence” since these duties “are obligations which can be met for others” (p. 178).
I disagree with Kant when he states that all moral actions stem from a sense of duty because Kant bases his premise on the fact that as humans we are “agents” “capable of self-determination, and specifically of determination in accordance with the principles of duty” (p. 178). Additionally, Kant identifies the importance of moral law and not of conformity since when humans do things because God wants them to do so, they are not acting morally in the literal sense but are only doing the right things because they fear hell or desire heaven. If this were to be the premise of his moral law then all religious humans who show respect for the Divine law and adhere to it would be erring and immoral in their acts.
Kant asserts that when humans act not out of a sense of duty but rather from the fear of God, it makes them do so due to their ulterior motives of pleasing God or from saving themselves from his fury and consequently being sent to hell. If this thesis of Kant is to be believed then God would not hold the Ulterior place in the life of believing humans and men and women would become their judges, affirming their action to be morally right because they performed them out of a sense of duty to do so. Thus, a man who feels he has to save his wife and has no money to buy her medicines would consider it morally right to steal and pay for her drugs to save her life. This presents the flaw in Kant’s thesis since “Kant is driven to a dual view of man” in which he believes humans to be both, “phenomenal” so that they are “natural and are casually determined” and “noumenal” in which humans are “non-natural and self-determining” (p. 178).
References
‘A companion to ethics’ – edited by Peter Singer.