Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Kant begins the section with a characterization of a good will. He writes that a good will can inspire an unlimited amount of goodness in an individual and a community. However, for these “talents” to make a positive impact in the world, they must “presuppose a good will” (9, 4:394). This means people must use their gifts with positive intentions. To properly evaluate these intentions, we should focus on their desired outcome, which Kant describes as ends. He argues that an end has “full worth in itself” (10, 4:394). Furthermore, a will ought to be “good in itself” and not good for accomplishing something else.

Kant then pivots to the specific composition of humanity and explains why humans are specifically cut out to understand morality. Every living creature’s natural composition makes them attuned for a specific purpose. Human beings are meant to pursue “preservation” and “happiness” (11, 4:395). However, our capacity for reason can make this difficult. Kant envisions all humans as fighting an intellectual battle between happiness and reason. Reason dictates we pursue ends that are good in themselves, but our desires for happiness may incentivize us to behave selfishly. A comprehensive understanding of morality allows us to center reason in our decision making and actions while still adhering to our desire for self-preservation. Kant describes happiness as a characteristic of a “private” life (12). While this may yield more happiness in the long term, living privately prevents an individual from acting morally—we are not pursuing a will that is good in itself, we are pursuing outcomes that will give us the most satisfaction. Keeping this in mind, humans choosing to act morally can rely on their capacity to reason to evaluate if a will is good in itself.

According to Kant, duty encompasses all actions a person ought to complete in pursuit of a good will. He presents three overarching propositions about duty. The first proposition states it is essential to distinguish an individual’s reasons for following duty. He writes that while some people follow duty out of obligation, others act out of a genuine desire to adhere to duty, stating “it is easy to distinguish whether the action that conforms with duty was done from duty or from a self-serving purpose” (13, 4:397). To further illuminate this point, Kant considers that shopkeepers understand their duty to charge all customers fairly. If word got out that a particular shopkeeper was overcharging his customers, he would lose all his business. Therefore, shopkeepers adhere to this duty to preserve their profits and reputations, not out of a genuine duty to others. A true moral action would be to act out of duty and duty alone. Kant presents an example of someone who has no innate interest in helping others but does so because of duty. He argues that this is a moral action, writing “to do the action without any inclination, solely from duty; not until then does it have its genuine moral worth” (14, 4:398).

Kant’s second proposition revolves around an individual’s maxim. A maxim is a person’s motivation for acting in a particular way. Kant introduces the concept of the maxim to hark back to a priori cognition. Returning to the examples from his first proposition, a person who acts solely based on duty understands the importance of pursuing a good will a priori. However, someone like our shopkeeper, who adheres to duty for personal reasons, is not driven by a pure desire for good will.

Kant’s final proposition states that people ought to pursue duty out of “respect for the law” (16, 4:400). Respect is an effect of intentionally and carefully following duty. While our actions may unintentionally yield positive outcomes, a truly good will comes from an understanding of why adhering to moral laws is a supreme obligation of all beings capable of reason. As we have already established that our understanding of morality is a priori and therefore ought to be universal, Kant proposes the following law of morality: “I ought never to proceed except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (17, 4:402). In presenting this law, Kant encourages the reader to consider their duty to others by placing themselves in someone else’s shoes. This offers an empathetic take on morality. To put Kant’s ideas into a more familiar context, readers may recognize this theory as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would want to be treated.

Kant puts this law into practice by considering someone who might make a promise they know they can’t keep. Different people might justify this lie in different ways. Kant offers the example of one person who lies to remove themselves from an awkward situation and another person who follows through out of fear of consequence. However, neither of these situations have a maxim that could adhere to universal law. Following Kant’s logic, the first person is acting in a way that suggests lying could be a universal law, and the second person is only acting dutifully to preserve their social standing. Whether they meant to, each person in this example is supporting a world without promises. Kant writes that if a person cannot imagine their maxim as the basis for a universal law, “it must be rejected [...] because it cannot fit as a principle into a possible universal legislation [...]” (18, 4:403). The crux of this idea is understanding that a universal law cannot contradict itself. Both individuals in Kant’s example are contradicting themselves by making a false promise while expecting that others will continue to consider them trustworthy. If their maxims are self-contradictory, there is no situation in which they are universally justifiable.

Kant argues that this framework allows people to evaluate good and evil without relying on philosophy. Most people do not receive rigorous philosophical training, so it is important to create an intellectual toolkit that prevents this from becoming an issue. As humans, we are unmatched in our capacity for reason and can understand the need to follow morals a priori. However, we can be corrupted by the less favorable elements of our nature, so it is important to pair this with a universal philosophical backing. Kant explains this by describing the necessity to join “common human reason” with “practical philosophy” to bring a balance between intellect and instinct (20). In this way, Kant accomplishes his goal of transitioning from common cognition to philosophical moral rational cognition.