In class today we discussed
Emmanuel Kant’s philosophical belief on good will towards others. In Kant's Grounding
for the Metaphysics of Morals, he
discusses the need for purity and morality in philosophy. I agree with Kant’s
opinion and definition of what good will is. Good will is the intentions behind
different actions we believe to be morally acceptable or right. Kant escribes
to a belief that there are three major distinct types of philosophy: Logic,
Physics and Ethics. Kant espouses a belief that in order for a person to have
good will they must always have good intentions with their actions.
The question that becomes can people have good will or good
intentions even when the result isn’t what a person intended. I class we
discussed a situation in which a student in the course gave the homeless food
that he or she did not have any idea was poisonous and all the homeless
individuals tragically passed away. Did that individual possess good will?
In my opinion, yes. I postulate a position that a person would
have a good will if their intentions were pure and unmaliciously. I think the
incident that unfortunately when poorly would not the will of the person. In
the same way that an athlete may lose a game but that does not change his or
her desire to win. I think the loss of life would be tragic however the will of
the person would still be good or pure in nature. The person would still be
trying to behave in an ethical and rational way. They would still be trying to
escribe to both a higher moral law and legal code.
I agree with you and Kant's idea that good will relies on the intention. If we intend to do good, then our will is undoubtedly good. Despite the consequences of that action, we had no intention to do anything wrong. I agree that those people still ascribe to a higher moral law. It is not the person's fault that the donuts were poisoned. Their intention was to feed the hungry and do good. The consequences of their actions had nothing to do with their original intention and therefore are not guilty of the negative things that happened. The fact that they were poisoned was not a moral or immoral action on the part of the person with the good will. With no way of knowing, they could not have prevented the tragedy. We must focus on the intentions. On the other hand, that person may still hold some kind of responsibility in today's society. We should always be aware.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your opinion that it is still good will even when the results aren't positive. The sad part about society is that when an act of good will does go bad, we punish the act. In the situation with the student giving food to the homeless and it turning out to be poisonous, the student would be punished even though he had good intentions. There are other less deadly situations where people have done acts of good will, it turning bad, and ends up being punished.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion on good will. In your example of the homeless man and the poisonous food, it is not like the person knew that they were about to harm the man. In their mind, they were doing a good deed by giving this hungry man food. I am sure that there are many situations where a person's plan to help someone has backfired against them. However, the good intentions that a person have lead to good will in my opinion. In this case it really is the thought that counts!
ReplyDeleteYour view on good will is perfect. When it comes down to it, good will is having the intention of doing something good for someone or something else. Whether something good or bad comes of it, well to me at least, that's up to whomever or whatever controls the way these things work out. The person giving the homeless man the donuts to replenish his health was their good intention. They just had no idea that they had been poisoned. Their intention was all good, the outcome was not at all. It was most unfortunate. So it is safe to say that I agree with your viewpoint that it is possible to have good will and intentions and not end up with good outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view, Eli. We as humans are bound to mess up in life sometimes; however that does not mean that we wish to do good in this world. The very definition of "will" means to wish or desire. Just because something unfortunate comes out of your ignorance or even sheer bad luck does not mean that you desired for it to go that way. I think anyone who disagrees with this statement should simply define the term "good will" and see that it is desiring the good: which does not hinge on the result of the action being taken.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince everyone seems to agree that Kant's view of good will is correct, I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. One must actually look behind the good intention to determine whether or not it is actually moral. If someone is being just and doing good deeds just so others will perceive him as good, is he really good?
ReplyDeleteAnother scenario would be if I put a kitten in a tree, with the intention of coming back and saving the cat, then technically my intentions would be good, but we know this is wrong.
Phillip, I believe that if you have a good intention you also have to follow through with the good action. Good actions will always be good if they were intended to be good no matter the ending result. If you put a kitten in the tree with the intention of actually getting the kitten out of the tree then you would need to actually follow through with the action. If your intentions were meant to be good then you should follow up with your good actions.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you in how the person did have a good will. But earlier in the post I began thinking about how you said the person must ALWAYS have good intentions to have a good will. I agree and disagree with this, I think it is more circumstantial. A good willed person, giving in to temptation one time does not make them a bad person for life. I think will changes from choice to choice. Much like the idea of happiness, you may reach eudaimonia for a time. But it is difficult to remain there for your entire life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your and Kant's idea. That if an action is morally good regardless the consequence then that person is still good. However, I hate how Kant states that you can change an action due to the circumstances. For example, the axe murderer situation we have to imply that whatever we do would be that law forever.
ReplyDelete