The Only Acceptable Motive For A Moral

.The Only Acceptable Motive For A Moral Action Is That It Should Be Done As A Sense Of Moral Duty.. Is This A Justifiable Claim. Essay, Research Paper

.The only acceptable motive for a moral action is that it should be done as a sense of moral duty.. Is this a justifiable claim.

Before it is possible to analyse whether the statement, .The only acceptable motive for a moral action is that it should be done as a sense of moral duty,. is a justifiable claim we must consider what ones moral duty is and if is it dependant or independent on the consequence of its action. For example we could state ones moral duty is never to lie. It is popularly believed that to lie is detrimental to one.s own reputation and often causes emotional and social damage. But what if this principal causes damage itself. Truth telling for a negative means can be just as harmful. Imagine you are told by a person fleeing from a murderer that he is going home to hide. Successively you are approached by the murderer demanding to know where that man went. Your moral duty would then oblige you to inform the murderer despite the possible fatal consequence. When studying the diverse issue of duty it is necessary to look at the view of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who stated,

.Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe. the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me..

Kant understood the word .ought. to be generally used in non-moral way. For example, if you want to be better at school, you .ought. to study hard. The inclination of the .ought. implies that studying would be the correct moral path to take. However Kant stated that this is only relevant to the individuals desire to be better at school. Those who do not wish to do well at school need not study hard. Therefore it is a .Hypothetical Imperative. and the use of the word .ought. makes moral actions not universal. A hypothetical good act depends on the desire for a result teleogically rather than something good in itself. From Kant.s perspective, morality had little to do with fulfilling ones desire for happiness, but was more to do with duty. He believed that to do ones duty was to follow a set of universal moral laws. As in the case of the murderer, it was ones duty to inform him where the victim was hiding. Kant.s views are referred to as The Categorical Imperative. This was an injunction, to be obeyed as a moral duty, regardless of an individuals impulse and self-interest. However what if an individuals impulse was to give to charity, would Kant condemn them because it wasn.t out of a sense of duty. This would be an unfair judgement as the person was doing good. In fact according to Kant their act would be immoral independent of the consequence. But perhaps if they also had the sense of duty and would give to charity even if they were unwilling they would be morally coherent.

The rules by which the Categorical Imperative is constructed upon could be considered as God.s unconditional commands. They don.t appeal to theological or even teleological considerations but adhere with a deontological argument from reason and rationality. The moral duties are followed because they are ends in themselves rather than some other ends. Kant did appreciate the fact that humans have desires as they are not wholly rational. However the ability to reason can make them strive to follow their duty rather than impulse. However this doesn.t mean ones inclination is necessarily wrong, only that it cannot determine their moral duty.

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued that to be moral one must follow absolute rules. In this there can be no exceptions despite the consequence, as he stated that the only thing that is good without qualification is good will. Therefore one must act as if the maxim of their action was to become a universal law. This is known as the Formula of Universal Law. Basically it is saying whatever moral decision you make you should be able to consider if it would be possible for everyone else to do the same, would it make rational sense. For if an act of good is universalised and then becomes contradictory then it is no longer morally valuable. The example given in the book Moral Problems was:

.Another finds himself driven to borrowing money because of need. He well knows that he will not be able to pay it back; but he sees to that he will get no loan unless he gives a firm promise to pay it back within a fixed time. He is inclined to make such a promise; but he has still enough conscience to ask, .It is not unlawful and contradictory to duty to get out of difficulties in this way.. Supposing, however, he did resolve to do so, the maxim of his action would be: .Whenever I believe myself to be short of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done.. Now this principal of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps quite compatible with my own entire future welfare; only there remains the question, .Is it right.. I therefore transform the demand of self-love into a universal law and frame my question thus: .How would things stand if my maxim became a universal law.. I then see straight away that this maxim can never rank as a universal law of nature and be self-consistent, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a law that everyone believing himself to be in