Duty and Freedom

Kant’s philosophy on duty, freedom, and morality, sympathy, and ethics explore the depths of the human psyche and its motivational processes for selflessness. While considered controversial in many aspects, Kant’s work held some similarities to Aristotle, a great master of philosophy. In an exploration of Kant’s work, an analysis of some poignant quotes are delved into within this paper. This is for a better understanding and contemplation of Kant’s work concerning morality, as well as a new interpretation of his ideas. 

According to Kant, “The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it nor in any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected effect.” (Kant 276). In Kant’s viewpoint, the action is often taken for the sake of duty, and in this quote, seems to express that it stands alone from the outcome or expectation. The action itself is moral if it is motivated by duty, which is against the previous notion that actions are often performed for the sake of sympathy or emotional well-being of others. Similar to the way friends or family may act on behalf of loved ones. Many felt that moral worth can be motivated by duty, but also love, friendship, or other higher ideals. Kant wrote that individuals do not praise actions unless they are duty-driven, which is considered honorable as compared to actions taken for the purpose of sympathy or desire. This is because an individual deciding on how to take action for a moral duty is completely different from one driven by an emotion, where the former is more challenging and requires work that doesn’t come naturally. 

Actions that display good will have to relate to the group conformity of what is morally correct, or expected. Good will is defined by the group, and the motivation behind duty can be enough to conform to the requirements of a group mindset. Kant believes individuals should be committed to performing actions that are not immoral, and perform actions that are of moral obligation. Good will should work alongside emotions and intentions, and be able to overcome emotions that are immoral or drive individuals to be tempted by malice. Good will is naturally driven by positive emotions and feelings and should be a part of someone’s innate nature, rather than forced good will that is contrived. 

 Thus, motivations that are duty-driven are not similar to motivations concerning happiness, sympathy, and self-preservation. This is due to the fact that action taken with these inner intentions are not an act of good will, despite how they may be positively perceived. These actions would have no true moral worth, where moral worth is based upon good will. Dutiful actions are, according to Kant, accidentally moral, and are innately based upon good will. For those who act upon happiness alone, then this would only allow an individual’s duty to be based upon their own happiness, ultimately it is not a duty at all. If the action was based on duty, the morality would be out of respect for what is morally correct, as opposed to a self-driven desire. This would give that action moral worth. 

Kant stated, “Therefore, the question is this: is it a necessary law for all rational beings always to judge their actions according to such maxims as they can themselves will that such should serve as universal laws?” (Kant 296). If morality belongs to certain laws, that would define it as not being free. Kant, however, believed that good will, duty, and morality shows that people are autonomous and free. For this to occur, that would mean that morality is not an illusion, but a realized construct. Kant argued that all events lead to a cause and that there is no whole freedom in morality where the activity is directed towards a cause. Kant also argued that freedom doesn’t exist in there is a lack of laws, but rather, that the laws are within the hands of the individual. An individual establishes his or her own freedom, by making their own rules. A sense of authority over oneself and the laws created by the individual is autonomy. This is different from freedom often thought of as being unbound from borders that are outside of the individual. 

Kant believed that acting under the idea of freedom isn’t differentiated between libertarians or determinists. The belief that one is free or the lack thereof doesn’t matter, as one doesn’t have to believe that they are autonomous. Additionally, Kant felt that there is no rationale for people to believe they are free because then wills would be described as actual property or items, separate from that of the external world. Someone acting under the idea of freedom would suggest that an individual is acting on a predisposed purpose or universal law that every individual is free. This means that will is consistent with the universal law, and that an individual is willing to be autonomous and willing to act on freedom. This would in and of itself be based on self-created laws and rules, which separate itself from the laws of an external authority. 

In the quotes, “Moral laws are free from any selfish or self-referential concerns, just as objective knowledge is free from such biases and misinformation”, Kant describes morality as detached from any form of judgment (Kant 297). Naturally, Kant proposed, that individuals act on their own happiness and will as a natural necessity, whether it is acknowledged or not. This leads to duty being imperfect when determining how to help one another. Happiness may be the subconscious aim of every duty, as each person wills their own happiness and pursues this happiness through their moral actions, even when helping another. 

However, this isn’t exactly an action driven by happiness for selfish goals but could be for the happiness of another. For example, an individual who intends to create a skill in themselves, they may have been helped by others through this skill, or improve others’ ability to learn this skill as well. Kant argued that an individual who pursues an obligation for their own happiness for the sake of self-growth may end up improving another’s outcome. For example, in this case, for someone who builds durable computers and continues to grow in their talent, he or she can allow another who uses this computer to enhance their artistic skills through illustration. Whereupon, without the computer designer, the artist wouldn’t have been able to become a master of the arts. Kant believed that happiness contains the maxim of delivering and sharing, and is part of the action for something desirable as opposed to self-development. As the individual requires action for personal needs or desires, individuals also will that others around them create their own talents. It is unlikely that people would not want a universal law that allows everyone to expand their skills, and that people would not restrict themselves from growing their talents as well. 

Kant stated that “Innocence is indeed a glorious thing; but, unfortunately, it does not keep very well and is easily led astray.” (Kant 279). Kant felt that doing a positive, or innocent, action does not occur without serious effort. These must fall within guidelines lest they are “led astray” and off track, which is why laws exist. Every rational will is bound to laws and is a union of different rational individuals beneath a common law. This describes the Kingdom of Ends, where the maxims of individual following universal laws simply for the Kingdom of Ends. This means that every individual must conform to laws and that their actions fall within the requirements that these laws obligate. These laws are based on ideal moralities and are developed by the group against the individual, as a form of moral legislature. Additionally, this legislature is what create universal laws, where all rational wills are bound by these laws. These laws make up a kingdom where each member is at the same level as a legislator, where all actions are a means to an end. This would mean that any action taken for moral reasons are conditional, and are conformist in nature.

Kant also stated that for an act to be virtuous, and of moral worth, it has to be motivated by pure intentions. This can only be done through religion or a quasi-religious perspective. Ultimately, this is due to the fact that Kant believes that innocence is lost too easily. Kant seems to feel that innocence itself is frail, and cannot exist in a natural world. Motivation through duty, and motivation through happiness, sympathy, self-preservation, or other self-motivated desires, reveal the purity of intention. Goodwill and moral worth can only come from an action that is innocent, and not deluded by the desire of happiness, or the well-being of a loved one. The act of duty is mostly out of respect for morality, and also, honor as well. Moral worth stems from this sense of duty that is more of an undesirable obligation, than that of one that is emotional or naturally desired. 

 The main idea is that the core root of moral obligation is to act on principles which are universally accepted. This kingdom is made up of individuals who create their own legislature within the community and uphold others actions to the same expectations that the individual would hold his or herself up to. This means that every individual within the kingdom will treat each other as they would like to be treated. Actions taken for an individual’s own selfishness cannot thrive in such a kingdom, as they would be against the rules. By the virtue of individual and rational intelligence, moral laws should be seen as accurate. Morality only exists if they belong to the laws within the kingdom. What should be within the maxim should be activities that one would desire for oneself, that everyone can fulfill. Additionally, the consequences of these actions have to exist. The kingdom of ends can also be seen as the formula of universal law, and the formula of the universal law of nature. 

 The kingdom of ends sees universality as a first-person experience.  Individuals can see themselves as responsible for the creation of the legal-system within their reality, based on their own legal system. Autonomous, in this scenario, requires a law upon the individual. As each individual has their own self-interests, then each member of the kingdom should favor the legislation in order to not be in service of their own personal interests. This will help them be beyond self-interest, and be able to act upon the interests of everyone. Individual members who have personal interests can expand beyond their selfish whims and simply belong to the legislation of the kingdom. Each legislator has to have no interest in in the creation of rules that are only fitted for personal desire. 

In a more spiritual sense, the kingdom of ends can be seen in a more religious light. Human beings, as part of the spiritual realm, exhibit their consciousness as a daily part of taking action. Consciousness is hard to define but allows for the decision making processes that occur by nature. Although the spiritual senses are thought to be blocked by sensory input and goes ignored by humans, clarity can come from defining the state of the consciousness. Within the kingdom, all are conscious human beings who decide to create legislation for the spirit or consciousness of other human beings. Each individual is an intelligible conscious individual, and for that reason, has the ability to consciously choose to take moral acts which contain genuine moral worth.  

In summary, Kant sees the kingdom as a systematic connection between individuals. Autonomy and choice for a moral act are not necessarily free of all laws, as autonomy depends on an individual’s own laws. Happiness can occur independently of desire, as an individual performs a duty sincerely and finds happiness by improving another’s circumstance. However, actions driven by emotions for loved ones is not genuine good will. According to Kant, the duty of pure intentions is one for the moral act of helping another, and not because it is a desirable action.

Work Cited

"Kant’s moral philosophy."