How can the good of a moral act be in the maxim that underpins it and not in the consequences of the act?

Question

Surely, the ultimate aim of engaging in moral behaviour is to bring about goodness in the world and to lessen pain and unhappiness.

I can see that by adopting moral maxims, we can bring about more positive consequences in the world than if we do not, but how can deontological moral philosophers maintain that the 'goodness' is in the maxim itself?

Answer 1

I think the point Kant is getting at is that you do the moral thing for its own sake ie not as a means of achieving something else. So one is nice to the little old lady at the end of the street not because you're angling for an inheritance, not because you're trying to impress that girl and not because you want to feel superior to others. You do it for its own sake because it's the right thing to do - that's what makes it a morally good action as opposed to a cynical one.

Try this as another example. You're driving home and a bunny runs out in front of you so you swerve to miss it. Regardless of whether you do actually succeed in missing the bunny, your action was the right thing to do.

Answer 2

Look at Kant's examples illustrating the CMI, which can be loosely interpreted as asking "what if everyone does it that way?" If everyone defaulted on loans, no one would be making loans, so defaulting must be wrong. Kant sees the logic of this as ontological, part of the structure of the world. But I just described it in terms of the consequences of action. The distinction is rather artificial, don't you think? Does goodness reside in the maxim (if you've even consciously articulated one), the motive (if there are such things beyond our explanations of actions), the action itself, or the consequences? Alan Watts would say that's like taking a meat cleaver to a cat and then asking if "catness" resides in the head, the body, the legs, or the tail.

Perhaps looking at the moral question from many perspectives helps us understand it better, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking there's only 1 right perspective. That leads to thinking there's only 1 right religion and blowing up (or burning at the stake) people who disagree.

Answer 3

I don't speak for "deontological moral philosophers",
but perhaps their argument is based on the soul's
ability to know right from wrong and the mind's and/or
body's incapacity to carry out the will of the soul. Therefore,
based on such an argument(which I don't fully agree with)
the intent to do good is the largest factor to practice
good will. In my opinion, if the soul is willing then the
soul will find some task which the mind and/or body
has the capacity to follow through on and potentially
generate positive consequences.

Answer 4

Depends.

But no matter all depends on circumstance and worst of all is the manipulation of the perception of what that circumstance is. Besides what is a moral act? Only a person who sees the simplest case would think this an easy question. Like killing, an immediate answer is it is wrong. Then you put the question (Like judges, police, doctors face everyday).

Do you kill an dealer with no hope of sobering up or being able to return to society and be responsible? Kill one person and save 100's? How about euthanasia? Do you kill a person riddled with hopeless pain that in the end results in their death or under the name of morality refuse to act and let nature take its course?

A persons morality is their ability to act according to their best intentions. Of course that changes in time like with diseases etc... Due to technologies, knowledge, experience. But one should never use morality as an excuse not to act when it is one's responsibility to act. That is the most immoral thing. Better to make a mistake in the intent of good than do nothing. (An accomplice to crime is one who doesn't necessarily participate but does not take their responsibility to act accordingly and to the best of their ability). This in law is so true! So it must be with morals!

Answer 5

I am sure everyone in the world believes that if all people in the world would act morally there would be peace. The reason why there is no peace is because we cannot decide on what the common moral code should be.

Answer 6

I really think the only thing that obscures clarity in terms of this issue are the presuppositions of modernity itself. One seeks the good for the sake of the good itself, not as Kant postulated as an abstract apriori or as the consequentialists have asserted simply in the consequences.

Answer 7

The Tamil saint-poet Tiruvalluvar said: 'Even a lie becomes truth if it results in good. Even a truth becomes an unvarnished lie if it causes harm'.

The good must be in the consequence.

Answer 8

It seems pretty basic to me. Does not morality arise from the knowledge of Gods love and the want to please Him? So it's like money in the bank. The positive effects will be after this life.

Answer 9

morals and goodness do not go hand and hand