Kant and Motives

Kant and Motives
Name:
Institution
Kant and Motives
Kant holds that, for some actions to be considered morally good, it has to pass some form of qualification, which in this case is to be done from the motive of duty. “There exist talents of the mind such as courage, intelligence and even wit, which are good in their own way (Kant, n.d)”. However, if the will or rather the motive of duty does not utilize them, then they are all useless and potentially damaging. This is especially possible if we consider a person who has all this attributes, but lacks the right will, then they can decide to use them to their own advantage, which may be damaging to others. This paper critically examines Kant’s claim and argument, and provides a stand point for disagreeing with the subject.
To elaborate on this, take an example of a person being in possession of gifts of fortune such as power and riches. “If there is no goodwill to check the influence of all this wealth on the mind, then in the end, the happiness or moral worth that is expected out of it can never be attained (Kant, n.d)”. From this statement, it is clearly seen that good will and the act of moral duty encompasses everything around us. From his argument, Kant held that only the motive of duty can lead by accident to the carrying out of actions, which are aligned to the morals of duty. So it is not by mere accident that a morally good act should have a motive that produces a dutiful action. Even though the above statement holds some truth to it, I beg to differ due to the following reasons:
Kant’s view that only dutiful actions out of duty have moral worthiness looks to be based partially on the claim: only the motive of duty attains this condition. Taking his point of view, it is unacceptable to generalize and conclude that the motive of duty wholly determines whether action should be considered morally acceptable or not. Other factors must be considered. “Good will can never exist on its own without being supported by other human qualities (Kant, n.d)”. The fact that we usually carry out activities every now and then out of the motive of duty it does not mean that it is the only consideration we have before doing something. Moral duty may force us to consider moderation, self-control or even deliberation, which in many aspects seem to constitute the inner worth of a person. But they are far from qualifying to be called good if they are in this case not aligned to motive of duty or good will.
Furthermore, “the common notion is that, motive of duty by itself is more than acceptable on its own (Kant, n.d)”. Just the same way one can consider a jewel which can stand on its own and maintain its worthiness at whatever situation with its value never decreasing. But stop for a second and ask this question; what if it is all a product of high-flown fanciness and that we may all have read or interpreted it all wrong. Let us take an example of nature, if by any chance nature could have considered reason and goodwill, when choosing organs that will perform different tasks in an organized being, then being best fitted and adapted to the task could not have been the criteria behind the selection. This would have meant that goodwill and reason would have hit a snag since only attributes like conservation, welfare and happiness would have been the considerations i.e. through reasoning rather than instinct. And eventually adaptation, convenience and best performance could not have been characteristic of nature.
For instance, the above case has been witnessed when people use their reasoning to try all ways possible to gain wealth thinking that is the ultimate form of happiness. But this is never the case, as many of...