Throughout the history of Philosophy and Ethics, there have been many philosophers with a number of different concepts that they believe best describe how we should live our lives. However, one of the most prominent and influential philosophers argued for a specific way of life: Kant with the life of the philosopher. In this brief paper, I will explain one of the most substantial arguments for Kant while having a counterargument that argue against some of the premises and conclusions of the philosophers.
In the First Section of the Groundwork, Kant argues that a good-willed person is required to “never to act except in such a way that [I] could also will that [my] maxim should become a universal law.” To get to that conclusion, Kant proposes a series of “propositions” that follow from each other and that ultimately concludes with his famous “Categorical Imperative.” Specifically I will investigate into the second proposition and how he arrives as his specific conclusion.
However, first it is important to define any essential terms within his language. When I mention the phrase a posteriori, I mean specifically knowledge that one receives when observing a specific event or scene. For instance, I know that a chair is red because I observed the color of the chair and thus knew the color after seeing the chair. Additionally, the meaning of a proiri is knowledge that precedes an observation. What I mean by duty is the purpose or will of man. In other words, what man is supposed to do or to perform. Thus, after defining all the relevant terms and concepts, let us dive into Kant’s main argument.
His argument for the second proposition starts with his first proposition and assumption: a human action has moral worth only if it is done from duty. He then goes into his second assumption that a human will that performs an action from duty is determined to perform the action, not by an a posteriori incentive (material), but by an a proiri principle. In other words, an action of a human has morality only it is done out of his will and is done out of knowledge preceding an observation.
Kant follows up these assumptions and premises by using the following premise in his argument: if an action has moral worth, then its moral worth lies in that which determines the will to perform the action. Therefore, (from 1& 2) the moral worth of a human action done from duty lies, not in a posteriori incentive, but in an a priori principle. Or in other words, the moral worth of a human action done from duty lies nowhere else than in the principle of the will without regards for the ends that can be brought by such an action. This particular part is the climax of his argument because it ultimately ties up his argument to conclude with his second version of his Categorical Imperative. In order to explain what is happening in these last two steps, it is important to note that we can only accept this conclusion if we believe his previous premises are valid. However, in this last part, Kant is casually taking his previous assumptions and connecting them with his conclusion by using simple syllogism techniques. If you except the fact that if the an action has moral worth then its moral worth lies in that which determines the will, you must accept his conclusion.
However, I do not accept his conclusion for a couple reasons. I think there are a number of problems with this argument. First, I think premise (2) is wrong. Although Kant uses a number of explicit and implicit premises to arrive at the statement declared in premise 2, it seems possible that a human will can perform an action that is determined by a material, or a posteriori, maxim rather than just an a priori principle. Furthermore, it seems entirely possible for the moral worth of an action to lie in the material consequences rather than just the intentions of the will. For instance, the moral worth of one of my actions can entirely depend on the consequences after the fact. If my a priori intention was to receive glory and honor for myself (or family, a selfish intention) and I decided that in order to gain this glory, I would sacrifice my life for another. When analyzing this action in terms of morality, it would seem necessary to take the consequences or the a posteriori principle into account rather than just looking into the principle of the will (or the maxim).
I also have an issue in Kant’s language in this argument. Although it might have been lost in translation, I would argue that Kant’s ambiguous usage of the word “principle” can deter from the validity of the argument. It is not always clear whether, speaking of the “principle of the will,” Kant is referring to the subjective principle of action on which someone does act or to the objective principle of morality, or the “law” with which his actions should adhere to. Thus, I do not find this argument to be persuasive because of the potential logical flaw in premise 2 and the ambiguity in the language that Kant uses in his argument for proposition 2.