The problem in this article is that good will is expected to be present and shown as a result of and action when in reality it is the good will itself that should be omitted and praised not the resulting product.
Solution- to look at the person as a whole and if goodwill is evident within them they should not later be judge upon what the result is.
The problem is that men have the tendency of acting out of inclination, that is, do something good because it makes them feel good or because they hope to gain something out of it. For Kant, the morally important thing is the way people think when they make their choices, and not the consequences of their choices.
The solution to this problem would be to do good will. The will is good when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination. In order to act out of duty, we should act from respect of the moral law and thus, we must know what the moral law is. Moral actions are determined by its reason, not by impulses. In other words, the moral worth of an action is determined by the reason behind the action, and not by its consequences. Therefore, an action is moral only if it embodies a saying that we will be willing to accept as a universal law.
Problem: There seems to be nothing "good" in this world except for a Good Will. The only thing that contain Good Will is duty, and although we always fulfill our duty, it isn't because we must, but because of our own S.I. Nothing that isn't for our duty is morally worth anything, and everything from our duty seems to have some moral worth to it. Our duty is to follow and respect the law. This is a problem because Immanuel Kant is trying to replace law with ethics. Also, if the law is wrong, like it sometimes has been in the past, do we still follow it?
Possible Solution: I think we should not use duty for law but for ethics instead. That way, we can escape from absolutes and look for the reason why something may be wrong or right. If we can infer that a law is good, then we may include it in our duty. Otherwise, we should exclude it.
The problem is to determine what, exactly, is good. One must first know this in order to ever strive for it- if it is to be strived for, if it can be. One may question if it is the action, or if it is perhaps the effect of the action. Good must first be defined before one can ever begin to attempt a civil society. The problem is the question, perhaps.
Kant presents good as to lie in the good will- to act not because of inclination but in respect to duty. To not act for the effect but for reverence to the law. It is truly good when one has no inclination, indirectly nor directly, towards the action but still wills to take that course out of respect to the law, out of duty. One already has a natural understanding of this duty-it is that is to be realized, not taught. Perhaps this is the effort called conscience- the understanding and adherence to duty, always present, waiting to be realized and followed for its principle in itself.
The problem of the article is the means for which people perform actions. It is nearly impossible to tell if the person was driven to perform it because of good will and the want to do good, or if he was just seeking to fulfill his self interest. Man is corrupt and can easily drive to pursue his self interest and seek it for nothing deeper than himself. In this instance, he has cast aside others and good and has made the action morally useless.
Immanuel Kant proposes that one should follow their duty in order to truly do it for good. It includes good will, which is the only truly good thing on Earth. This eliminates the worthlessness of the pursuing of their self interest and make them others bound.
The problem of this article is that the author believes that people the only way a person can truly be good is if they are good, and not by what they do or how they act. He believes that people who are good are driven by the power of will and they don't act to do good they just find it as their duty, or moral obligation to take the path which would undoubtedly lead them in the correct path. People cannot be taught this it just happens to exist in them. People who are only thinking of the outcome of a certain situation are not being driven from their duty, but rather because of outside inclinations. Others that don't follow either their duty or outside inclinations and follow what ever is beneficial to them are selfish according to the author.
The solution I believe is that sometimes people do need to be taught that there is not always a reward of some sort for taking the correct path, but it might lead to some kind of intrinsic value such as happiness, this might be a dangerous path however because the happiness is supposed to be the outcome of a situation in which people were just driven by their duty and not because they thought it would be beneficial for them in the end. Many people say that a person is defined by their character and not by their actions, but how can this be an accurate form of judgement when they have a good character, but do bad things.
Problem: In a Kantian society, what is the ethical standard/CS2 (based on this article)??
Solution: According to the reading, it is clear that "good" and "bad", or "right" and "wrong" have been replaced. The question is by what. What, according to Kant, should be the community standard in a society?? He answers this by using the term "duty". According to Kant, it is this duty, this completion of a task or gesture regardless of one's willingness that determines moral worth, rather than whether one does that which is right. According to Kant, nothing is good or right except for good will, something, Kant says, is included under the notion of duty. Therefore, one’s moral worth can be measured by their adherence to their duty. Duty, Kant says, should be the ethical standard of a society.
The Problem- Kant says that everyone has a duty to maintain their life and everyone want to, but the way people live their life doesnt have any intrinsic value and doesnt get any moral import. They dont maintain their life because their duty requires but as it requires it. Alot of the "good" people arent good at all, just because people are sympathetic and kind doesnt mean they are good because people do act kind and sympathetic because it is whst is expected and prefered for in soceity not because it is their duty.
Solution- Someone might have a tendency for an object in effect from an action but i cant respect the tendency because it is and effect not a power of will. The object needs to be simply what it is "the law of it" and have no influence from tendency. Then the moral worth of an action wont be because of the effect from the tendency, and only a rational person can do this, look at actions for just what it is "the law". Then good (moral) can only consist of the things above and this good is already in a rational person.
Problem: Kant believes actions are done strictly for ones self benefits, but really they should be done just for the simple fact that they can be. He thinks that one should be willing to do something whether or not it benefits himself or not, it is the willingness to fulfill the duty that counts.
Solution: Instead of placing judgment on everyone else, we should make a standard that puts everyone together, no one individual higher and more privileged than another.
The problem of this article appears to be about the duty of a good will and how and why this duty gives this will worth. This worth must also not only be worth in the good sense but also good simply in itself, without any further investigation or dissection on its part. This duty must be separate form any sort of inclinations that we may possess, and these inclinations must not influence it. These inclinations may be self interest and represent our selfish agendas. The duty must also respect the law and must also be able to comprehend it and understand it thouroghly. This means that this could only be possible in a rational being. The final word as to the moral worth that may be assigned to the action of duty is based upon its maxim, or its intent. The outcome of these actions can neither add nor detract from the overall goodness that the good will possessesss.
In the article, the Kant describes ethical actions as duties. The problem is that people only perform these duties because they are either forced to or they want to serve their own self interest. Most of these duties that people of the society are performing contain no moral worth whatsoever. People of the society only perform ethical actions “as duty requires” not “because duty requires.” The society is following a standard of ‘ought’.
Kant suggests to the reader that all members of the society are good, yet they don’t have good in the results of their actions because they act in the good of themselves. The people of the society cannot only have good; they must have good will.
Problem: The problem presented in this article is that in order to do "good" we must feel like we want to do good. With duty, it is our obligation to do some act that will result in a certain outcome. This varies from inclination, where perhaps our doing good is not meaningful and is not truly good. Therefore duty may be a more reliable ethical compass than inclination.
Solution: A possible solution to this problem is to truly mean to do good and to follow our duties and commit to them in order to produce a better good and a stronger outcome. If we can try to promote our happiness and to live well, we can have a better moral community.
1. The problem of the article is possibly that we do things be our inclination, which is not right, but in may appear to be right. It is actually in the self interest of the individual.
2. The possible solution suggested in the article is that we do things according to our duty, which is actually good because their is intrinsic value.
Duty and Categorical Rules
In society, there is nothing good in this world except for the concept of good will and even then, there is nothing that will always be good and suitable in every situation to be an absolute characteristic of good will. There are many different aspects that can be applied to good will, but they can never be used at all times since these aspects can never be used at all times. These aspects intelligence, wit, resolution, perseverance, etc. which can be good things in life, but can also be used in a wicked way so it’s not always good at times. Having all these good virtues, only to discover they can be used in wicked ways and turning out not to be so good, present a challenge for society. What is good? What is duty? How can society even achieve good will if there is no absolute characteristic that defines it?
There are qualities that can initiate actions for good will but there is no intrinsic value for the individual to grow, reason, and develop off of. First, good will is defined by if it is genuinely good, not just for effects. There should not be a reward for good will to be valuable or good. In order to achieve good will, the individual must understand duty because good will consists of duty (but cannot be done from duty because that is from a selfish view). By accomplishing duty, it results in a trustworthy and honest society but this can contradict another duty, maintaining one’s own life and happiness. The only reason why this becomes a contradiction is due to the fact that individuals don’t take in the intrinsic value, so they cannot develop. In order to achieve a reasonable duty that respects the law, practical love (unbiased/unpathological), moral worth (not for result/reward), and no inclination (temptation) is needed in order to achieve the goal of being able to promote one’s own and others’ happiness at the same time.
The problem of the situation is how are individuals using dug now a days is it used only when it is in our own benefit or do we do it only because we feel we must respect the law. Also the author states that duty derives its moral worth from making the statement public and telling everyone you are going to follo your duty but when you do so with out making a big commotion about it and not caring in having the recognition of the people. The solution is that duty should derive from not just one point of view but from all three of them which would only be possible by a rational being,
Problem: People only do certain things because they feel that society makes them
Solution: If their only influence or incentive to do or say something is society, then the conversation isn't honest. It's rather just like the "fake I'm sorry" that doesn't been anything.
Duty and Categorical Rules- part b
Problem: Everyone wants happiness, not because it is a necessity itself, but so that it can be used for another purpose. Happiness, though, seems to lack an imperative. This means that people do not know exactly how to reach it. In addition, happiness sometimes also brings misfortunes, such as envy from others when you become wealthy, a long life of misery when you ask for immortality or a long life, etc. The problem is also whether when we do good but someone doesn't, if we are obliged to still be good to them or not.
Possible Solution: As for happiness, it might contradict duty, so instead of striving for short-term happiness, you must follow your duty and see what will benefit much more for your life, even if you might suffer a little at the beginning and give up a little happiness just for that time. Because it is your duty to strive for happiness, if a person disturbs you during the process by doing something immoral, you should be able to drop the moral act since the field has already become immoral and the individual has already violated the moral code, and do what it takes to sustain the happiness, while also looking at the complete situation to make sure you are not falling into any consequences that would give up your happiness or break any laws. Because morality and law are NOT EXACTLY the same, you can still do something immoral without breaking a law to try to satisfy your happiness and complete your duty.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union