Lisa 1
Andrew Lisa
Professor O’Dowd
PHIL 1105 Ethics
29 October 2019
Reckless Intentions: An Analysis of Good Will According to Kant
The complexity of ethical decision making has perplexed philosophers for over two
millennia, making the search for a universal formula to ethics a common focus for many of them.
However, the diverging evolution amongst various culture’s ethical thought processes has made
ethics difficult to contain within this sought-after universal formula. One such example of a
philosopher who attempted this task is Immanuel Kant in the chapter entitled “Morality and
Rationality” in his book Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kant attempts to rationalize
morality according to defined principals, which he claims are universal, in which he discusses a
separation between intentions and consequences. Kant argues that only the intentions of an
action matter while the consequences do not, I disagree because in many cases the intentions of
an action can be good but nonetheless result in preventable negative consequences.
Within Kant’s formula of ethics, he includes a fundamental idea which serves as the
cornerstone of his writings. The idea is that in order to define an action or decision as one which
is good, one must only look at whether the intentions are good without considering the state of
the consequence. Kant writes that, “The good will is not good because of what it effects or
accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because
of its willing [which means] it is good of itself” (327). In other words, if the intentions of an
action are from a good will, meaning that the desires behind an action are good, then the
, Lisa 2
consequences themselves do not define the goodness of the action; the action is labeled “good”
merely because its origin is good. Another way of presenting this is exemplifying a means by
which a person reaches an end. In order for the means to be considered good, it must originate
from a good maxim, or principle which is acted upon (O’Dowd “Immanuel Kant Lecture”). For
the maxim to be considered good, it must be in line with the “categorical imperative”. To define
this term, Kant says, “There is, therefore, only one categorical imperative. It is: Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law” (335). Two underlying implications of this imperative are that humanity should be
considered an end itself where a person should not be used as a means, and that a maxim should
be something which can be applied to everyone. These three ideas imply that the maxim must be
applicable in all circumstances without exception, which includes situations which directly affect
the individual in action.
To best understand the categorical imperative, consider the maxim that honesty is good.
Visualize the following situation: a very close friend gets a new outfit and asks for your opinion
on it, but you do not personally like the outfit in any way. Acting upon the maxim which states
that honesty is good, you would respond honestly and tell your friend that you dislike the outfit.
Since this is a close friend, they would most likely trust your judgement and not wear the outfit
anymore. The means in this situation is the fact that you are being honest with your friend in
order to achieve an end in which he or she does not embarrass themselves wearing the outfit in
public. This situation has a good means, classifying it as a good action according to Kant
although the end is good as well. Now consider an alternate example in which this friend is
substituted with a stranger. Acting upon the same maxim, you would again tell them that you do
not like the outfit at all. In this situation however, the person would think that you were being
Andrew Lisa
Professor O’Dowd
PHIL 1105 Ethics
29 October 2019
Reckless Intentions: An Analysis of Good Will According to Kant
The complexity of ethical decision making has perplexed philosophers for over two
millennia, making the search for a universal formula to ethics a common focus for many of them.
However, the diverging evolution amongst various culture’s ethical thought processes has made
ethics difficult to contain within this sought-after universal formula. One such example of a
philosopher who attempted this task is Immanuel Kant in the chapter entitled “Morality and
Rationality” in his book Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kant attempts to rationalize
morality according to defined principals, which he claims are universal, in which he discusses a
separation between intentions and consequences. Kant argues that only the intentions of an
action matter while the consequences do not, I disagree because in many cases the intentions of
an action can be good but nonetheless result in preventable negative consequences.
Within Kant’s formula of ethics, he includes a fundamental idea which serves as the
cornerstone of his writings. The idea is that in order to define an action or decision as one which
is good, one must only look at whether the intentions are good without considering the state of
the consequence. Kant writes that, “The good will is not good because of what it effects or
accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because
of its willing [which means] it is good of itself” (327). In other words, if the intentions of an
action are from a good will, meaning that the desires behind an action are good, then the
, Lisa 2
consequences themselves do not define the goodness of the action; the action is labeled “good”
merely because its origin is good. Another way of presenting this is exemplifying a means by
which a person reaches an end. In order for the means to be considered good, it must originate
from a good maxim, or principle which is acted upon (O’Dowd “Immanuel Kant Lecture”). For
the maxim to be considered good, it must be in line with the “categorical imperative”. To define
this term, Kant says, “There is, therefore, only one categorical imperative. It is: Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law” (335). Two underlying implications of this imperative are that humanity should be
considered an end itself where a person should not be used as a means, and that a maxim should
be something which can be applied to everyone. These three ideas imply that the maxim must be
applicable in all circumstances without exception, which includes situations which directly affect
the individual in action.
To best understand the categorical imperative, consider the maxim that honesty is good.
Visualize the following situation: a very close friend gets a new outfit and asks for your opinion
on it, but you do not personally like the outfit in any way. Acting upon the maxim which states
that honesty is good, you would respond honestly and tell your friend that you dislike the outfit.
Since this is a close friend, they would most likely trust your judgement and not wear the outfit
anymore. The means in this situation is the fact that you are being honest with your friend in
order to achieve an end in which he or she does not embarrass themselves wearing the outfit in
public. This situation has a good means, classifying it as a good action according to Kant
although the end is good as well. Now consider an alternate example in which this friend is
substituted with a stranger. Acting upon the same maxim, you would again tell them that you do
not like the outfit at all. In this situation however, the person would think that you were being
