In these pages, Kant argues for his ethical theory, based on a concept of the good will and how it is rational. Kant here is asking a moral question: what can we say is a truly moral act, a truly moral behavior? For Kant, it appears that this truly moral act or truly moral behavior must be moral in every possible situation. This is why Kant calls it a “duty.” We have a duty to act morally. And furthermore, what is moral is also for Kant rational. How does his argument work?
If I understand it correctly, Kant first says that a truly moral act must be moral in itself. It cannot be a means to an end. When someone does something truly ethical then we can recognize it as such. This means, however, that what is moral would be moral in every situation. This is because the recognition of the moral act cannot be dependent upon its context, or upon the consequences it creates. What is moral, in other words, is always the same: this is what a true moral act is.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals".
This is how Kant makes a parallel between morality and reason. Because a rational conclusion is always rational, whatever the context. Rationalism is not relative: when we use our reason, 1+1 is always 2, whatever context and situation we are in. If it is the same with morality, that a moral act is always moral, then there is a clear connection between morality and reason. It appears that Kant argues if reason is what we can understand, then we can also understand morality: morality becomes something rational to us, just like 1+1 = 2 is rational. And thus at the same time morality is a duty, because it is rational. It is not something to be argued, because a rational principle is rational in itself. When we rationally understand the moral duty, we must act according to it, because it is the same as a rational formula such as 1+1 = 2, self-evident and rationally true.
- Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
