Kant suggest that moral judgements must focus on the motives behind our actions....?

Question

It is the will that determines whether the actions are morally good or bad. Do you agree with him? Please explain.

Answer 1

Kant believes (and I agree) that all actions are morally ambiguous. There is no such thing as an action that is either bad or good in itself. Killing can be good or may produce a good outcome. Give everything to the poor and you give them an excuse to do nothing.

At the end of the day, you need to know why people do things and that they are willing to be responsible for their actions.

Answer 2

will and determination are the same thing and our morallity or standards will determine whether we do something or not.
this means that before we do something we probably know if it's good or bad, if we do something and dont realise the probable outcome of our action then at worst we are criminally negligent
Google has as their motto 'do no evil' which is a bit smartarse as it infers that we all know the results of all our actions.
i personnally believe that deep down we all know what's right or wrong even if that belief in itself is wrong..maybe some people are racist because of what they've learnt off their parents but as they're swearing at a person from another country they truly believe they have a moral justification. i have a feeling that Kant will have said a bit more on this subject.. good luck

Answer 3

It's most intuitive.

If an assasin is aiming for the president, trips and shoots another sniper gunning for the man, you don't give him a medal for heroism...

Whether of not the will is free doesn't matter (if this has anything to do with your query). A completley determined volition will still act on the basis of some local intentional states.. and we praise or blame that locus of intentionality when it either conforms or departs from the standard practices.

If determined actions are tenable is another story.

Sometimes people are 'excused'-- even if their intentional states are precarious, we nonetheless realize it is not their fault that they have such motives. It's rare, but it happens.

The cases where people choose against their will are obviously excused. The subtler cases where, for instance, a relative performs genital mutilation on a child -- conformable to their custom, but not our own -- if they broke some law, they may not be guilty, especially if it is for some religious purpose. Then again, the intention is not to harm the child per se.. so this isn't the best example.

Answer 4

the line to hell is paved with good reason. Communism became rather beneficiant in intentions--needed to easily eliminate all injustice of existence--and what created turned right into a marginally unnatural evil. This stands for information that good reason does not assure moral acts, or outputs. Secondly, the most elementary and staggering regulation of this international is the invisible hand that correlates human being pastime with accepted pastime. Does function with imperfections, even though it has served all acceptable up to now, as proves our continuously progressing society. It starts with what Kant may call selfish pursuit of self earnings. that is really the purely thanks to do it. we are self reliant platforms programmed to make a way throught the game. we are certain to hunt self earnings. it really is likewise "moral" if this self earnings is calculated nicely. often persons who do not mange to hunt self earnings fail even worse at contributing to the great thing about others. they are undesirable for the entire sum of excellent, too. the idea of moral has seriosuly been revisited because Kant, or perhaps extra with this society starting to be except for Christian morals. So what's moral besides? it really is moral to play the game acceptable.

Answer 5

Kant beleives we have duties to society to be morally aware.
it is your duty to society to not kill somebody,
to not drive drunk.. to not do anything that hurts other people.
if i kick the soccer ball through the neighbor's window
i did not do it with an ill will, it is not the act of breaking the window that would be morally wrong, accidents happen, but perhaps the choice of what area of the house i was kicking the ball was morally irresponsible if not wrong.
so yes i agree with kant.

Answer 6

I agree with Nietzsche: "An action prompted by the life-instinct proves it is a RIGHT action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that Nihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as an OBJECTION...What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure - as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for DECADENCE, and no less for idiocy......Kant became an idiot........."

- "Nietzsche: The Antichrist"
(Translation by H.L. Mencken)

Answer 7

No; the Will is positive, the Judgment is negative. It is bad Judgment that could be immoral, but immoral is of the Judgment and moral is of the Will.

Answer 8

I disagree. Moral judgements cannot be made because for every winner there is at least one loser.