-
Kantian Categorical Imperative: Its Implication In Nigerian Ethical Order
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
-
-
Kant distinguished the two senses of the wordâ€Summum†extracted from the
phrase “ summum bonum†and therefore drew a distinct line of
demarcation between supreme and perfect good. According to him,
The
Summum may mean either supreme (supremum) or perfect (consummatum). The
former is that condition which is itself unconditioned, i.e. not
subordinate to any other (origianarum); the second is that whole of the
same kind (perfectissimum)3
By this, Kant means that the supreme good
is the unconditioned good but not the perfect good; it is only a part
of the perfect good, while the perfect good is the whole good. According
to Kant, goodwill means supreme and not a perfect good, while the
perfect good is realizable in the life after. Thus Kant gives the
condition under which goodwill can as such be called the “summum bonumâ€
He thus denies the possible existence of any other perfect goods.
As
regards the second question, which centers on the nature of goodwill,
Kant gave some elaborations of this in his notion of duty. He succinctly
defines goodwill†as that which acts for the sake of duty.â€4 Hence for
fuller understanding of the nature of goodwill, we turn to Kant’s notion
of duty.
1.2 THE CONCEPT OF DUTY
Kant defines goodwill
as that which acts for the sake of duty as we have earlier written.
This does not necessarily imply that an action done for the sake of duty
is what solely makes a will good. This leads Kant to distinguish
between the holy will and human will. According to Kant, a holy will is
that which is inescapable of any maxim conflicting with the moral law.
In other words, it is that which naturally and necessarily acts in
accordance with the moral law. Such a will, in Kant’s conception is not
above the moral law but is above the restraints and constraints of such
law and therefore is above duty.
On the other hand, a human will is
that which does not necessarily act in accordance with the dictates of
moral law because of the influence of passion and inclination. However
with the help of reason, acting in accordance with the dictate of moral
law becomes a standard a good towards which such a will strives amidst
the opposing torrent of passion. Hence, acting for the sake of duty is
for human will, a constraint, a duty. Therefore human will is a will
under duty and can only achieve its goodness by acting for the sake of
duty.
Kant further distinguishes two types of actions in relation to
duty; an action which accords with duty and an action which is done from
duty or for the sake of duty. By an action which accords with duty,
Kant means an action which is performed from any other motive like from
inclination, sympathy or selfishness which happens to coincide with the
requirements of duty.
On the other hand, by action done from duty or
for the sake of duty, Kant means an action performed from no other
motive but the moral one, such an action is done solely because it is
what duty requires. Hence, only such an action, for Kant, has moral
value. Thus he says:
An act is morally praiseworthy only if done
neither for self-interested reason, nor as the result of a natural
disposition, but rather from duty5
By way of synthesis, Kant defines
duty as “the necessity to act out of reverence for the lawâ€6. In Kant’s
conception, it is only moral law, detectable by practical reason that
could be the object of respect. This law awakens respect for itself, by
checking and humiliating our passions and inclination. Thus, whereas
moral law awakens respect in us, duty makes us conscious of this law and
gives us the reason for acting out of respect of it.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
