Alden Farrar PAR 101-002 Professor Heath White Argument Paper #3 Morality of the Will Human beings are

born with the capacity to know right from wrong. This being said, outside influences do succeed in molding this morality to societal standards. Nevertheless, all humans always have the option to follow their inherent moral code or to stray from it. Whether or not they do is determined entirely by the will of the individual. Emmanuel Kant and Thomas Nagel have starkly conflicting views on these ideas which merit consideration as to the moral nature of the rational being. Kants moral theory is based around three propositions of morality as well as his supreme principle of morality known as the categorical imperative. The first proposition states that, an action must be done from a sense of duty, if it is to have moral worth. He asserts that the rational being has a natural inclination for morality which is determined by the will of the individual not by society or even personal traits. This is what he refers to as duty or law. When one acts based on a rejection or affirmation of this duty he or she is acting based on morals. The individual must use reason to make an informed choice out of obligation to the action that most honestly serves humanity. Kant uses the example of practical vs. pathological love. Practical love is love that comes from a sense of obligation or necessity whereas pathological love is the more commonly spoken of form in which the love is derived from a natural feeling of attraction toward the person. Kant

believes that practical love is a fine demonstration of an action done from a sense of duty. Therefore, practical love has significant moral worth but pathological love lacks it. The second proposition of morality is similar to the first but takes the argument a step further. Kant states that not only does an action done from duty derive its moral worth but that the purpose or effect of that action has no bearing on the moral relevance of the action. He affirms that the will is what lies between principle and action and because of this solely the will is responsible for moral worth of the action. If the will is morally sound then the result of the action, regardless of whether the action had its intended effect, is irrelevant. The will is entirely unconditional according to Kant. If a man seeks to make charitable donation and the organization simply steals the money, the man has still done a morally sound deed because it was done from his heart and his good will. The third proposition is based upon respect. Kant feels that humans respect that which we naturally perceive as good moral. One cannot respect a mere inclination and therefore must rely on the will and duty to respect a choice of moral significance. Only the will that is in line with inherent principles can be respected and praised for being morally righteous. He affirms that the conception of good and evil, right and wrong, are always present in people and that it is unnecessary and pointless to determine moral worth by the outcome of an action when the will and personal law of the person speaks for itself. The categorical imperative is Kants supreme principle of morality, his moral code. It is based on two main premises, which may seem simple and broad upon first glance but can steadily be applied to nearly every situation that requires moral evaluation.

His first formulation of the categorical imperative is that one must always act on intentions that one could will to be universal law. If it would not be right for everyone, it is not right for the individual. This could be translated into a variation on the golden rule which states: do unto all others, as you would have them do unto you. It does not matter whether the action will be more likely to benefit you or even the persons involved, the essential and necessary aspect is that the action be one that can be uniformly applied to all rational beings. If it cannot be universally applied, it is not morally righteous. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is that all rational beings must be treated as ends in themselves, never as simply means to a further purpose or goal. Do not manipulate persons in order to gain a step ahead of them. All people are of equal value and to tread on anyone for the selfishness of personal gain is immoral and detrimental to the furthering of humanity and morality as a whole. Kant illustrates his kingdom of ends that involves a union of man abiding by common law to combine the first and second formulation of the categorical imperative. In doing this, Kant believes, man can achieve both the collective and individual moral goals by viewing every individual as the means to a universal end. If every individual is viewed as an end in his or her self but is guided by universal morality in doing so, the individual as well as the collective rational being is appeased. Nagel holds a vastly different view on morality. He concludes that the result of the action is of the utmost importance and that it is essential when judging whether an action is immoral or moral. He references the situation of attempted murder versus murder where the perpetrator is sentenced quite differently in a court of law based on the outcome of the action. Regardless of the fact that the two situations have the same intent,

they are seen and punished quite differently in the eyes of the law. I blame this situation on a flawed system of judgment rather than the simplicity of Kantian morality. Nagels main assertion is that external influences that are outside the control of the individual have to be taken into account when judging the morality of a situation. He calls this idea moral luck. This covers a wide range of situations from the effectiveness of a revolution to the blame placed on perpetrators of genocide. Nagel feels that whether one is lucky or unlucky enough to be placed in a situation such as should be taken into account when assessing the morality of an individual. In addition, he holds that a persons personal traits such as courage or cowardice, intelligence or ignorance, and generosity or cold heartedness need to also be assessed. Nagel alludes to the opinion that one should be held less accountable for ones choices due to these factors which are out of ones control. If someone overthrows an oppressive government they should not be praised for it, only seen as lucky. If someone murders in cold blood, they should not be blamed for it, only seen as unlucky because an outside force did not get in the way. His view negates the idea of control and free will and he sees people only as things under the whim of his idea of fate. The fact of the matter is that actions are choices, not just events as Nagel states. People are agents of god given choice, not simply things as he feels. Humans are imperfect and will never make the morally righteous choice, based in reason, all of the time. Therefore, luck is nonexistent when put into the broad scope of past errors in moral judgment and a fate based in the moral righteousness of the individual, as a whole, in the eyes of God. Therefore, to progress in morality, the rational being must embrace reason and put aside God given advantages or disadvantages to strive for moral perfection by

utilizing free will to the most positive end. The idea of fate and luck must not be seen as synonymous. Luck is that which is out of human control, whereas fate is the human destiny, which can be embraced or rejected to varying degrees using simply reason and choice. Praise and blame are essential for progress forward as a species and learning from past mistakes and accomplishments. Although this may be a world we have not created we all still have a responsibility to improve it as much as humanly possible.