“It’s the Thought That Counts:” Kant’s Obsession With Good Will in ‘The Metaphysics of Morals”

Kant’s Groundwork For the Metaphysics of Morals is, as the title states, groundwork for the analysis of human morality, duty, will, and freedom. In it, Kant examines the soundness of principles of morality, its root, and its universality. The text establishes a baseline that allows us to examine his idea of morality, as well as the subsequent ideas stemming from morality, namely, duty, will, and freedom.

Kant condenses his work into three concise sections preceded by a comprehensive preface. Titled Transition from Common to Philosophical Rational Knowledge of Morality, Section I defines the “good will,” stressing its significance regardless of the actions accompanied by it or their results. In Section II, Transition from Popular Moral Philosophy to the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant shifts the focus toward the moral worth of one’s actions. Section III, Transition from the Metaphysics of Morals to the Critique of Pure Practical Reason, discusses the freedom of will and morality of rational beings.

I began to wrestle with the ideas in the text upon encountering the gaping hole behind one of Kant’s biggest main points. Kant’s main idea regarding moral worth is that an action will still stand as good, regardless of its outcome, as long as the will or intention behind it stems from good or duty. This idea is stable enough on its own, but Kant creates a paradox in his attempts to deepen the understanding of the concept in Section II. He points out in passing that we can never be absolutely certain that the actions that we claim are done out of duty and good will are not actually driven by “Some secret impulse of self love” (20). Furthermore, he admits that we can never possibly know or understand what drives us. This brings me to the contradiction that presents itself once Kant makes his beliefs clear; if there is no possible way to know the true intentions or drive behind actions, how can we choose which ones we ascribe moral worth to? For him, an action is good if it is done out of duty or good will. But if there is no possible way to ascertain that one’s intentions are good, how can we be sure that the action itself is good? Even if the action itself brings about good, like donating to charity or helping an elderly woman cross the street, Kant still believes that all good actions and principles that define good still hinge on the inner principles that result in them. In a previous course I took, the professor instilled in us the importance of the formulas of induction and deduction when writing an essay or opinion. The latter states that, if the premise of a deduction is incorrect or incomplete, the conclusion is automatically false; if X, then Y. If not X, then not Y. We can then apply this to Kant’s theory of an action’s moral worth. Kant believes that if every action has a set, known driving force or intention, then its moral worth can be determined. Despite this, he writes, “It is still always doubtful whether an action is actually done from duty and thus has a moral worth” (21). Kant’s own claims that intentions and inner principles behind actions can never be determined falsifies his deduction that the moral worth of actions themselves can be determined, thus falsifying the entire argument.

I disagree with Kant’s placement of intentions on a pedestal, instead arguing that results are what truly counts. I believe that the will behind actions does not matter, as long as the intentions do not affect the action by resulting in direct or indirect harm. For example, if a billionaire who owns hundreds of sweatshops donates a large sum of money to charity in order to get a tax write off or improve their public image, I would argue that the ill intention does not matter, since it has put good out into the world regardless. An example of the opposite that anyone can relate to is when a person in one’s life who is ‘just trying to help’ ends up ruining everything, despite wanting the best for you.  To quote a famous phrase that encompasses this concept perfectly, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

I would not recommend this work to others if they only seek an introduction to metaphysics and morality. Kant’s explanations are repetitive, and trying to follow his arguments often feels like trying to trace a single strand of yarn through a cable knit sweater. Engaging with the content and ideas would require a fairly solid understanding of the basic concepts beforehand, so that one is able to hold their own when they inevitably get lost in Kant’s cyclical reasoning pattern. The point of any argument defending a philosophical theory or principle is to present evidence and reasoning to support one’s idea. One cannot provide a text with such information, only to drop a bomb after the preliminary argument, essentially saying “I do not actually have concrete proof that what I am proposing is applicable,” in regards to our inability to determine the true driving force of one’s actions. A person attempting to understand, and perhaps build on these ideas through Kant’s work cannot do so if the premise is contradicted in the very text used to introduce it.