Paper 2 Intro to moral philosophy 3 Final

Jessica Romero
3/7/2015
Paper 2: A Discussion on Kant's Use of Characterization and Kant's
In section I of Groundwork, Kant primes the reader for his discussion of moral philosophy by characterizing the reader's pre-philosophical intuitions about morality. Kant wishes to make clear the distinction between acting from duty, and simply being "in conformity with duty." He also desires to ease the reader into accepting the moral principles presented. Therefore Kant uses the actions of four characters and the reader's moral attitude towards those characters and their actions to support his idea of what is morally correct. This paper will discuss three of the four examples Kant uses, focusing on how Kant uses the characterizations to support this point, on how the presentation of his characterizations helps support his argument, and on how closely he captures the reader's pre-philosophical intuitions. The chosen examples will include: that of the shopkeeper who does not overcharge an unexperienced customer, which Kant uses to distinguish that which is done from duty, and that which is done simply from one's inclinations; that of a sympathetic soul who receives inner gratification in spreading joy around him, which Kant uses to mark a distinction between having an inclination to do good things and performing a morally worthy action from duty; and that of a gout sufferer who "can choose to enjoy what he fancies and to suffer what he can," which Kant uses to illustrate the fact that as long as one does not take into account one's inclinations when deciding how to act, one can perform a morally worthy act from duty.
The structure of the analysis of each example will begin with a presentation of the example, as well as an explanation of what Kant is saying and how he uses the example to support his point. This will also touch upon why, in the grander scheme of his argument, Kant is presenting each point. Furthermore, the analysis will explore which moral philosophies the examples might be a response to, and how adequate is the response presented. Then, the analysis will present my own pre-philosophical intuition on my example, as well as other ways of thinking about the problem, and the implications of each of these interpretations. Lastly, the analysis will present possible ways Kant would respond to each of those interpretations. After the examples have been presented, the paper will tie together the three characterizations which were analyzed, and present a basic structure of Kant's argument in the first section of Groundwork.
The scenario Kant presents to the reader to help distinguish between an action done from duty and an action done in conformity to duty is that of a shopkeeper who does not overcharge an inexperienced customer. Kant is saying that, while it is indeed morally correct for the shopkeeper not to overcharge his customer, the shopkeeper is motivated not from this moral duty, but from self-interest – it is better for his business if it is known he does not overcharge his customers. According to Kant, the fact that the action is performed due to self-interest and not from duty means this action is not morally worthy. This can be considered a response to Bentham's Utilitarian view of morality; while in utilitarianism what matters is the resulting action and not the motivation behind it, Kant believes that the motivation does indeed matter. In other words, Bentham believes it is the ends which matter, while Kant believes that one's motivations determine whether or not an action is morally worthy. Kant focuses on the inner world of the individual, and on what role the various motivations play in determining that individual's actions, which contrasts directly with Bentham's focus on the outward expression of those motivations (more specifically, on the action performed, regardless of whether or not the motivations themselves are moral). Therefore, Kant is also saying that what must be weighed more heavily when determining the morality of an action is the mindset of the individual; the results themselves are not to be weighed when making this determination.
Kant assumes that the reader would agree that the shopkeeper's acting in conformity with duty is not itself morally worthy. In my opinion, Kant is correct to assume this. Performing an (otherwise morally worthy) action because it is in your own self-interest to do so is not particularly morally worthy. This is especially applicable in the presented scenario, where money is the main motivator for the action. However, some might argue that the actions of the shopkeeper, regardless of motivation, are in conformity with duty and are thus of moral value. With that perspective in mind, one can see how it is the actions themselves which should be judged when determining the moral worth of an action. There is an additional perspective which should be considered. Some might argue that it is not the motivations of an action which should be judged, nor the actions themselves, but that the evaluation of moral worth should be based on the results of the action committed. An example we have studied in class has been that of a neglectful parent who leaves their young child in a tub filled with water; if the child drowns, then we judge the parent to be guiltier than if the child does not drown. Kant would not believe that the results matter; in either case, the parent has been guilty of neglect (of not performing a parent's duty) and has acted in an immoral manner.
Kant also presents the scenario of a sympathetic soul who gleans inner gratification by spreading joy around him. Kant believes that the reader would agree with him that such a person "deserves praise and encouragement, but not high esteem," because performing such an action from inclination is not morally worthy; again, Kant emphasizes the importance of committing an action from duty. Kant is saying that performing an action simply because you are naturally inclined to do so does not make that action morally worthy. Here, Kant is also saying that simply acting in accordance with duty is not morally worthy, even if one has the 'right' state of mind. This can be seen as a response to the Aristotelian view of morality, where having the right state of mind and performing the morally correct action means that the action and the person performing the action is moral.
Kant assumes that the reader is in agreement with the fact that a right action performed out of natural inclination, and not from duty, is worthy of praise and encouragement, but is not morally worthy. In my experience, Kant is correct to assume that the reader would believe the sympathetic soul who finds it gratifying to spread joy is worthy of praise and encouragement. However, my pre-philosophical conviction would be that an individual who does good because it is in his nature is performing an action that is not only praiseworthy, but also morally worthy. Contrary to what Kant believes, this would imply that it is not necessary for an action to be performed from duty in order for the action to be deemed morally worthy. Simply having the 'right' mindset (which will not be discussed in the scope of this paper) and performing the right action (one that is done in conformity to duty) would be morally worthy with this perspective. This would be in the general spirit of Aristotelian ethics. An alternative way of looking at this situation might be one where the sympathetic soul is judged not to have the 'right' mindset. This would mean that having the 'right' mindset does not include simply having an inclination to do the right thing, and that the sympathetic soul is not performing a morally worthy action.
The last of the scenarios Kant presents which we will discuss is that of a person who suffers from gout of the foot. The scenario presented has an individual who suffers from gout and "can choose to enjoy what he fancies and to suffer what he can." The individual has a (natural) inclination towards seeking happiness. Kant uses this last example to ensure that the reader understands that it is possible to have a natural inclination towards performing an action and still perform a morally worthy action – that is, performing the action from duty. Kant explains that if the man's health (and happiness) does not enter his calculations when deciding how to act, and only his adherence to the moral duty to advance his happiness entered his calculations, then the man could be said to be performing a morally worthy action.
Kant assumes that the reader believes that to secure one's own happiness is one's duty, and that all human beings are naturally inclined towards this end. I believe Kant is correct to assume so; happiness is itself the ultimate form of pleasure, and is as such very desirable. Furthermore, happiness is an end which I believe we all naturally seek as soon as we are able to do so. For example, a child will seek the immediate happiness gleaned from eating a candy. I was initially not inclined to believe that to secure one's happiness is one's duty, but after reading Kant's reasoning (that to be unhappy would lead to having a great temptation to perform a moral transgression), I accept that, to an extent, securing one's happiness is one's duty. Some might argue that happiness is not an end which we all seek. It is unclear what, if anything, we would all seek naturally if that were the case, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. This alternate assumption combined with Kant's idea that to seek happiness is one's duty would imply that happiness is a tool for achieving a moral purpose. Furthermore, if one takes into consideration the fact that under most circumstances to experience happiness is pleasurable, one comes to the conclusion that it is possible to experience pleasure while performing a morally correct duty. This is very similar to Kant's point. The basic flow of the argument presented by the characterizations discussed are as follows: 1) [from the shopkeeper example] An action is moral if it is done from duty, not simply in conformity to duty; 2) [from the sympathetic soul example] An action is not morally worthy if it is not done from duty even if it is done from a praiseworthy inclination; and 3) [from the gout sufferer example] An action may be deemed morally worthy even if it is in conformity with a natural inclination, as long as that inclination does not enter the calculations performed when deciding whether or not to commit that action.
My inclinations about the shopkeeper match Kant's characterization; the shopkeeper is not being morally worthy in adhering to a principle because of self-interest. In combination with the previous intuition that the shopkeeper who does not overcharge an inexperienced customer because of self-interest is not being morally worthy, this would imply that, in my perspective, a morally worthy action is one that conforms to duty and is done for a good reason (that is not necessarily duty). My third inclination, that happiness is an end which we all seek, but that there is no duty to seek happiness, would imply that we are not morally worthy simply through the act of being happy. While my pre-philosophical intuitions are similar to Kant's, the differences are important. Kant's basic point of adhering to duty and acting from duty is lost with my initial pre-philosophical intuitions. Therefore, his characterization is not accurate enough for me to accept all of Kant's assumptions without thinking more deeply about the nature of my intuitions. However, after deeper deliberation, I can see that Kant raises important points, which I hope I can discuss in the future (as further discussion is beyond the scope of this paper).