Kant and Schopenhauer 91Immanuel Kant approaches moral philosophy from a position
which places the concept of the “ought” above all other consid
erations. He contends that empirical evidence muddles what is
with what ought to be and thereby confuses the study of ethics.
If ethics deals with the “ought,” moral judgments must deal with
universal and binding rules regardless of personal opinions or
preferences. Thus, the concept of a priori knowledge becomes
the cornerstone of his philosophy. (A priori means prior to
experience.) Kant seeks to discover those principles which are
valid and universal regardless of personal experiences.
The question of good, then, is important, and Kant immedi
ately claims, “It is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the
world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without
qualification, except a good will.” Thus, if one wills to be good,
then the good is in the willing, and circumstances, consequences,
and other conditionally good things do not diminish a good will.
Kant maintains that reason has a practical function, to produce
a good will. He contends that reason does not make us happy. To
the contrary, instincts are better at doing that. But since all things
exist to some purpose (note the teleological premise), reason
must exist not to make us happy but to produce a good will,
which is a greater end than happiness.
This, then, leads to Kant’s concept of duty. He identifies three
possible motives for any human action: inclination, self-inter
est, and duty. The first two may be done in accordance with duty,
while the last is done for the sake of duty. Kant insists that a good
will acts for the sake of duty. “Duty is the obligation to act in
reverence for the moral law.” Three examples should show how
Kant distinguishes the differences.
If a person does not cheat his customers, he is acting in
accordance with the moral law. If he chooses not to cheat those
customers because he knows cheating is a bad business practice,
and in the long run it will hurt him (self interest), he is acting in
accordance with duty. If a person is upset with the condition of
his life, contemplates suicide, and then out of fear (inclination),
decides not to end it all, he too is acting in accordance with duty.
But in neither example is the person acting for the sake of duty.
Acting for the sake of duty is acting in response to the command,
“Do not cheat,” or “Do not take your life,” with total disregard
for your own self interest, inclination, or any other external
condition.