Kant began section I by saying that there is nothing in the world that is good except good will, “it is impossible to think of anything at all in the world … that could be considered good without limitation except a good will”
People can be good to others everyday but if their intentions are ill intended then their actions cannot be consider good. Consider the following scenario; you are at your relative house for dinner and they are discussing the Australian Fire. Then one of your cousin had a bright idea and told the family, ‘let’s all pull out our phones and donate money to help’, one by one everybody donate 5-50 dollars. You are sitting there with your phone out feeling pressured to do as others are doing so you donate 10 dollars just to do it, while your little bother donated 5 dollars, his weekly allowance. If Kant were to rate your action vs your little bother’s action he would place your bother’s action above your, because he had good intentions and good intentions goes along way. He donate all the money he have now and next week and the week after, soon at add up more than your single donation. Doing one good deed for the sake of it cannot hold up to multiple smaller deed.
https://www.wwf.org.au/get-involved/bushfire-emergency#gs.w817u6
Really like the analogy that you used, helps a lot with understanding Kant’s idea.
Hey Ta,
I found the analogy you used to explain Kant’s ideas in a modern situation interesting, although a bit misguided. To start off you state that a good will cannot have ill intentions, yet Kant would argue that any intention at all would make an action no longer one of a good will. In other words, all the individuals involved in the scenario would be equally be performing actions that are no longer of duty, not just yourself. It also seems that you believe that the impact/size of one’s actions determines how good the person’s will is when that is further from Kant’s definition of a good will. The only person in this analogy that can be stated to have a good will is the little brother who continues to donate out of duty rather than the single time the family suggested to do so.
I would fight one 100 sized chicken. But I do agree with your little brother would be rated above you. Since you donated $10 out of peer pressure, it shows that you yourself do not really believe in the cause/donation. But since your brother gave up his money for the week, it shows he really believes in the cause.
I too, really like your analogy. Kant also mentioned how good will defeats a calculated move. Extending from your example, Kant would praise the little brother’s action because his goodwill is pure, whereas the big brother’s acted only after calculating that not donating will change people’s perception of his morals.
I find your analogy very interesting and going along with an earlier comment, your example can be a bit misguided. The only person that would be considered to have goodwill would be the little brother because he is going out of his way to donate constantly.
In answering the question, “would you rather fight one 100x chicken or 100 normal size chicken,” I would choose to fight one 100x chicken. I do agree with your analogy and that the little brother would be ranked above you because while you donated out of obligation, the little brother donated of pure reason and good will. Extending from your ideas, Kant also believed that humanity does have some obligation to help others because failure to help on specific occasions shows that we do not truly care about the well-being of others. Thus, we have some duty to help others, but this duty is “imperfect,” and we must ensure that we are helping others out of pure will, not because of what you might gain from the process.
I wouldn’t fight a chicken, that’s immoral. I agree with your interpretation of the relativness of ones action affecting its morality. Some who have more to give give a smaller proportion than those who have las to give. It also brings into question whether one does a good deed inorder for them to feel good about themselves, which now renders it immoral, or do they truly want to help.