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.