Immanuel Kant brings up a compelling argument on the theory of moral motivation and moral rational cognition in his text, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. His theory can almost be seen as an enactment to change the way in which humans think morally. He sets up his argument on this theory by defining the concepts of good will and duty. He uses these two concepts and his three propositions on morality to try to prove that rational beings should be living a life that is only motivated by the moral law. Though Kant makes a forceful argument on moral motivation theory and morality, he doesn’t strengthen his argument enough in order to prove that the distinct relationship between moral and duty has no, or shouldn’t have, relation to emotions, inclinations or consequences whatsoever. Modern day reality and the way in which society functions argue against Kant’s perspective of morality.
Kant introduces his
…show more content…
He explains what is and is not morally relevant to rational beings that live under moral obligation. The only thing that should be morally relevant is motivations (duty) alone, and neither the consequences of actions nor the emotions one has with their actions. The consequences and emotions of actions are considered not to be morally relevant because they are motivations of our own inclinations, since they pertain to our own sensory experiences, which Kant believes is immoral. Kant furthers his arguments with discussing motivations. He defines them as our maxim, a guide/rule to living, which can only be moral if they come from duty, or the moral law. With the discussion of duty, morals, and good will, it is once again seen that Kant’s argument entails the dismissal of happiness; Kant says that we have an indirect duty to sustain our happiness because our aim is not happiness itself, but warding off the temptation to act against the moral