Kant Case

Introduction

Kant notes that a sense of duty is what validates an action as having moral worth. This means that the moral value of an action consists in its being done from duty, or from the precept upon which the person acts. People’s activities may be inspired by other things other than responsibility. For example, grocers have an obligation to offer fair prices but most of them do this, not out of a sense of duty, but due to rivalry in business. Similarly, people ought to help others in distress ought of a sense of duty but some do it to spread happiness to others.

The second proposition is that an act is not to be judged by their intended outcomes, but by the ‘maxim’ whereby it is intended. This means that when someone is motivated to do an action by a sense of duty, they act as such out of moral principle that is valid a priori.

The third proposition is that reverence for the law should be the basis for which actions are undertaken. This means that though people can act out of instinct, and good results can happen out o chance, only a rational being can recognize a general moral law and act out of reverence for it. Kant notes that reverence for the law should not be construed as an emotional veneration for the law, but the recognition that law is an imperative of reason that overrides all other interests.

Conclusion

Since neither motivating situations nor envisioned results are to be considered, there needs to be a principle that is universally valid. Kant, therefore, notes the maxims of his actions are such that he would will them to become universal law, and that people should act in such a way that we could will the ‘maxim’ of our actions to become universal law.