In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant makes the claim that a good will is good if it has intrinsic goodness. Specifically, that it is good even when the will is not effective. In his words, “it would, like a jewel, still shine.”
He’s wrong. A good will with no positive outcome is just a lame excuse for saving face when you don’t care about something. Doing something good necessitates positive action on the world. Let’s say, for example, that your friend Bob gets cancer out of nowhere and has no way to pay for it. According to Kant, I could simply tell Bob that I’m “sending my thoughts and prayers” and walk away, still doing a good will. And then Bob will die because Bob lives in the U.S. and Bob is uninsured and broke. Wow, not even God was strong enough to save Bob from a shitty healthcare system. At least you get to watch your childhood friend Bob die knowing you had a good will! I’m sure Bob would like that.
Let’s propose a new definition of a good will: you have to try to bring about a positive change in your environment. In this scenario when Bob gets cancer you decide that thoughts and prayers aren’t going to do jack shit and so you start a GoFundMe to raise money for a plane ticket to Norway. Wow! After raising $1400 you send Bob to Norway where they decide to treat him because the hospitals there are more interested in saving another human’s life than taking the sick Bob’s money as he dies. The end.
I agree with the point you made that consequences of actions do matter. Having a good will does not equate bringing a positive changes. Kant’s idea is that the consequences of an action does not matter, what matters is the moral worth. However, there are bad consequences even though the intention of the action is good. An action will have consequence, and I think it should be taken into account when judging an action. If good will is all that matters, people would be doing nothing but having good wills.
Justin,
I can see how some people may act in certain ways to save “face”; however, I disagree with how you frame good will. You state that saying something like “sending … thoughts and prayers,” shows someone expressing their good will, but good will has more to do with intent and the will to bring about a change. Kant says, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, … but because of its volition”. It seems that from your example the action of sending ” thoughts and prayers,” was to save face, and therefore the intent didn’t aim to positively impact the recipient of the gesture. Because of this, I cannot see how this would be the use of good will.
Justin, I think that you make a good point with your blog. One will not make a positive impact if they sit by idly and send well wishes through the screen of a computer. Although their intentions may be good, this will get them nowhere, and will only help them feel validation as if they have done something good. Kant may believe that if one has the motivation to do well, then the outcome is not important, but this is incorrect due to the fact that there will never be any change without one’s goodwill having any outcomes/consequences, which I believe is an integral part to actually making a difference in someone’s life (such as Bob) or even the world.
I understand your position on how a good will without the backing of any actions seeking to improve the situation should not be considered a good will. In fact, I think Kant would agree with you. According to Kant, a good will naturally leads to a sense of duty, and any action done solely out of duty has moral worth and would be considered good. I would argue in your example that sending thoughts and prayers purely out of good will and not out of seeking the approval of others is good, but it has less moral worth than the act of raising money for your childhood friend to get crucial treatment. This is because the latter action implies that you used what Kant calls “practical reason” to determine how you should respond under your good will. You raise money because reason guides you to act on the principle of saving a life (I say saving a life because if you did it to save your friend, that would kind of be doing it out of desire, and Kant says that desires have nothing to do with good will despite sometimes overlapping with one’s sense of duty). Employing practical reason to try to improve the situation has moral worth and is therefore good. Regardless of the outcome, what is important is that all of that stems from an initial good will. Given these points, it seems that to me that Kant would share your views.