To be beneficent where one can is a duty; and besides this, there are many persons who are so sympathetically constituted that, without any further motive of vanity or self interest, they find an inner pleasure in spreading joy around them and can rejoice in the satisfaction of others as their own work. But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however dutiful and amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth. Kant is stating that when the opportunity arises to be helpful (without recognition) or to do a good deed when one is presented without thinking about it or taking away from their own that it is a duty of every human being. He explains further however, that their are those whose lives are centered around the pleasure of others and happiness of others. There are those individuals whose happiness is presented through others happiness and by the act of going out of the individuals self to advance others in their own happiness they in turn are content and happy knowing that they made someone else happy. The fact that they did good towards another is their only happiness.
He also states that this being the case no matter how good or moral the acts of kindness may be he is certain that these type of people in their actions have no true moral value or worth at all. He contends that these acts of kindness are not morally worthy at all. I believe that Kant believes in doing good to others when the opportunity arises and that when presented with a problem and one can do the morally right thing by helping others if it is in their duty. Kant believes this because he believes that it would be wrong not to do good or help someone in a particular instance where no one else was around to help. Nothing is happening to advance there virtue and knowledge on the earth while they are advancing someone elses. So when one of these acts is unasked for the risk of not doing someone a favor and then later reveling in there pampered pleasure that you assume that you provided for them on a silver platter would then be false and misleading. Lets consider another angle of this same question of moral worth.
The Essay on Kant Vs Mill Moral Act
Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant was born, lived and passed away in his home town of Konigsberg. He lived from 1724 to 1804. He studied at the local university and later returned to tutor and lecture students. It wasn't until he met an English merchant by the name of Joseph Green that Kant learned of David Hume and began to develop his ideas of morals and values. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) ...
Kant believes that these peoples actions have no moral worth. First of all there is not a human being alive that does everything for the sake of others and out of complete love and unrepaying devotion to giving. If their were they would be called Jesus. To dispute Kant statement that people like this in their actions have no true moral worth and accepting that people are imperfect and have imperfect wants and feelings, one would have to find a person who does things all of the time, one hundred percent of the time for others only to enjoy in their own secret way the joys of others. By this I mean that their helping of others could never be known to anyone and that if they truely did things for the sake of just doing good and enjoying the fact of knowing such then they would in a sense be perfect. But then again if there was no recognition of the deeds and furthermore assuming that no one on this earth is perfect it would morally worthless for someone to claim that their constitution or way of life bringing them happiness all of the time being one as such and only being explained by perfection of themselves. The ends which a rational being arbitrarily proposes to himself as effects of this action (material ends) are all merely relative, for only their relation to a specially constituted faculty of desire in the subject gives them their worth. Consequently, such worth cannot provide any universal principles, which are valid and necessary for all rational beings and, furthermore, are valid for every volition, i.e., cannot provide any practical laws. But let us suppose that there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute worth, something which as an end in itself could be a ground of determinate laws. In it, and in it alone, would there be the ground of a possible categorical imperative, i.e., of a practical law.
The Essay on Kant An Act Of Moral Worth
Jill had been driving down a deserted road when her tire became flat. With no one around for miles she struggled with changing the tire when Jack happened to be driving by and stopped to give her a hand. How and why is this an act of genuine moral worth When the opportunity arises to be helpful without recognition or to do a good deed when one is presented without thinking about it, is to perform ...
Now I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. Kant is proposing that imperatives which seek to satisfy material ends,i.e. wealth, lust, gluttony, etc., are only hypothetical categorical imperatives. Hypothetical is best understood as meaning a rude and unrefined imperative, which must be tested by universal application. For example in the way that maybe what I choose for myself as in moral acts that I choose to watch or participate. More specifically What I choose to watch on television, the existence and then the act of not watching pornography or violence I would consider a moral act and for me happiness would be one of being a moral person along with other things still remaining. What I mean by this is that one person can have a goal that is the means or the ends to achieve happiness and by that goal and if that goal could be attained then therefore one could achieve their goal and it wouldnt have to be the same for everyone.
