In Groundwork, section 1, Kant emphasizes the way morality in life centeers around duty. He argues duty cannot be motivated by self-interests and is not based on emotions. Emotions keep your freedom to choose to be rational and rationality in Kants case is the basis of morality.
He states “Put the case that the mind of that philanthropist were clouded by sorrow of his own, extinguishing all sympathy with the lot of others, and that, while he still has the power to benefit others in distress, he is not touched by their trouble because he is absorbed with his own; and now suppose that he tears himself out of this dead insensibility, and performs the action without any inclination to it, but simply from duty, then first has his action its genuine moral worth.” He argues that an act or duty done without sympathy or emotion is a true moral act of moral worth. That if an act is done with emotion or feeling it is not moral at all. Morality should not be motivated or affected by moods or emotions.
Kant says that a person motivated solely by her sympathy to help someone in need would not have done something of true moral worth. Why? Do you agree? Why or why not?
I agree with Kant that a moral act or duty motivated by sympathy is not of true moral worth because sympathy is a fical thing. Sympathy can be bais and unreliable. It is not of true moral worth because is motivated by self-interest. For example, if you walk by a homeless man off the street and he ask you for change; would you give him money simple because he needs it or would you give it because you feel sympathy towards him? Mant would say the later, which is a discussion motivated ultimately by sympathy. you are choosing to help his homwless man becuase you feel for is situation and not because it is simple the right thing to do.
word count: 334
Let's Talk Turkey 