Introduction to Ethical Studies: An Open Source Reader | ||
---|---|---|
Prev | Chapter 16. "Act in Accordance with Universal Law" by Immanuel Kant | Next |
Compare and contrast Kant's view of the good will with the Socratic Paradox expressed in Plato's Protagoras. Kant writes, "…reason is not competent to guide the will with certainty in regard to its objects and the satisfaction of all our wants…" How would Socrates react to this assessment?
Compare Kant's reasoning with Jeremy Bentham's hedonistic calculus. How would Bentham respond to Kant's point that the pain of calculation out factors the actions itself. Would the validity of this argument depend on the personality type of the person who is evaluating the action?
Can you construct counterexamples to Kant's view that actions done for the sake of duty have more moral worth in every case that actions done in accordance with duty? Would this doctrine imply that the development of good character is morally neutral? Does a good person who acts rightly have less moral worth than a deceiver who is honest only upon occasion?
In the reading, Kant argues that an act of self-preservation, if done from inclination has no moral worth, but an act of self-preservation if done for the sake of duty has moral worth. At the same time he states, "calm deliberation" makes a villain far more dangerous. Would the foregoing statements, if taken as premises, imply that for Kant, the action of a soldier who, against his natural inclination, leaves his post in order to preserve his life is an action of moral worth, whereas the action of a soldier who is inclined to stay at his post in accordance with his duty, in spite of great personal hazard, has no moral worth?
Kant contrasts practical and pathological love. Distinguish between these two, apparently essentially different, kinds of love. Is the crucial point of difference the distinction between affection and will?