In Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues that the will is good in itself, apart from the results of actions done by it. He states:
“Now an action done from duty must altogether exclude the influence of inclination and therewith every object of the will. Hence there is nothing left which can determine the will except objectively the law and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, e.i., the will can be subjectively determined by the maxim that I should follow such a law even if all of my inclinations are thereby thwarted” (400-401, page 13).
It seems that Kant treats natural inclinations as an obstacle to pure will, which he considers good in itself. However, inclinations often push us to do the same things that duty push us to do, so why does he view inclination and will as somewhat opposed to each other? The logical application in the extreme of Kant’s attitude towards inclinations would seem be the eradication of inclinations in order to allow duty to be the only
…show more content…
Kant emphasizes that only the law and pure respect for the law should determine the will. However, when taken in context with his other remarks in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, it is unclear how the law can be anything other than arbitrary. Kant claims that results do not matter as it is the will that determines morality. This means that no matter the law, following it is the moral thing to do. This raises significant problems. One does not usually argue that Nazi soldiers acted morally when following the law and killing thousands of Jews, provided that they did it out of duty, but Kant’s philosophy would seem to require one to argue that. Do Kant’s arguments mean that there is no such thing as an immoral law? Additionally, it is generally understood that laws ought to be based upon morality, and if the will is what determines morality, what is law supposed to be based