THE GOOD WILL ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

THE GOOD WILL ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

Introduction
The opening statement from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics says, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called “good”, without qualification, except a good will.” According to Kant, “Intelligence, wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good.” Good will is the first and foremost of the ethics of Kant. Without good will , whatever we do collapses as not a good character. It is very difficult to identify the character of a person. In virtue ethics we see that the concern was many upon the action which leads to achieve the highest goal. They call it highest happiness- eudaimonia. Unlike Aristotle and Greek philosophers who thought the practical aspect of the virtue, Kant has a stand different from them. When the Greek philosophers thought the practicality and were insisting the regular practice of virtue to attain the highest good, eudaimonia, Kant looks for the intentionality and the motive behind the particular action.

Aristotle and Kant on Morality
When we consider the famous philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, there comes an old saying into the mind: "You're either with us, or against us!" Both had very strong viewpoint to enhance their stand regarding human good. Kant's conception of the good was found to be more compelling than Aristotle's, in that Kant's view addressed the good in a universal sense through the categorical imperatives of man. In his book Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle asked the reader what he considered good. Aristotle listed some common examples such as, having friends, experiencing pleasure, being healthy, and being honored. Aristotle furthered his argument by getting to the root of every good action. He remarked that if a man kept questioning various actions he deemed “good”, he would find that every good action lead to some form of happiness. It is for this reason that man often associates happiness with different needs in his life. For example, if a man is ill, he wishes for good health, for it is what he believes will bear happiness. Although there are many intermediate forms of good, Aristotle believed that there must be a highest good. A good is desirable in itself and not for some other end, and that where all intermediate goods point. All the other “so called goods” should be able to enhance the highest good, or they are to be leading us to achieve the highest good, happiness. As Aristotle consumes virtue is habit, which is acquired through regular practice of good actions and avoiding the evil ones.
Kant’s position to the morality is based on the goodwill. According to him, the intention of the action is important rather than the practicality and the consequences. Kant pointed out, have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. But a good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action. According to Kant, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalisability , by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. From this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law.

Good Will Discussion
We have seen already for a moral judgment good will is essential and inevitable for Kant. A good will alone is good in all circunstances and in the sense is an absolute or unconditioned good. It is the only thing that is good in itself, good independently of its reaction to other things. We may consider many things as good. There are various things and happenings good, provided they give us happiness and brings cheer to our face and smile to our lips. But is it real happiness? Or is there anything as virue in it. What we see as good may not be virtuous, provided it may be the out come of some actions or the pleasure it produces in us. When we perceive the “so called good things,” we see they are not good in all circumtances, and they may be thoroughly bad will. They are only conditioned goods.
Good will can be understood as the right motive. The right motive is “to do the right thing”, “to do one’s duty”, “to respect the moral law.” A rational being who consistently has the right motive has what Kant calls a Good Will. Nothing is more important for morality than having a good will. According to Kant, a rational being with a Good Will automatically does its duty. The will of man is intrinsic and so original without any polution.

Rational Being with a Good Will is Never Bad
According to Kant, desires for pleasure, happiness, or self-interest are impediments to perfect rationality. It is through these external interests of man, there comes malice in the rationality. But a Good Will has been “purified” of such inferior motives. A Good Will has no such inferior motives. A Good Will thus never falls into the fallacy of special pleading. A Good Will’s maxims are invariably universalizable without contradiction, because the Good Will has no impediments to reasoning well. So a rational being with a Good Will always acts rightly, in accordance with the Categorical Imperative, and thus in accordance with duty. This is to sat that, for a rational being with a Good Will, being moral and being rational and being fully human – are the same thing.

Conclusion
It is through the faculty if good will, one can respect the human beings without any researvation. We get the respect due to this good will. Most things have only conditional value. It is true that in every humanbeings the good will is prevailed. But the fact that every human beings are different from another. So there are different views upon the value system each one holds. The value one person thinks as higher may not be or is not the greatest value for another. This is all because we are not only the rational but there are many elements which make a great contrudiction as well as uniqueness in human beings. Will is struggling with the instincts, desires and interests of human beings. That is why Kant suggests the categorical imperative. The first formulation of the CI, tells about the will and say that it is to be universal whatever we consider as maxim. It is through this, we are able to give respect to the fellow beings and the same is our duty. At the same time we need to keep in mind that since the good will is there in all the human beings, being rational, we have the right to receive the respect. Thus good will plays very importance role in the development of the dignity of person.



Bibliography

Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics. Trans. Lewis
White Beck. Berlin, 1932.
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Sir David Ross. Oxford University Press:
London, 1959.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. trans. Thomas
Kingsmill Abbot, Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 2005.
Kant, Immanuel. The Moral Law. trans, Herbert James Paton. London, New York:
Hutchinson’s University Library, 1948.