This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 9-29-06Philosophy LEKant's GroundworkIt is impossible to think of anything at all in the world . . . thatcould be considered good without limitation except a good will (7).Since a good will is good in itself, it is good even if it does notachieve what it aims it. Thus, it does not matter whether or not a goodperson achieves the things at which he aims because a person with a goodwill doesnt do his duty in order to bring about good effects in theworldhe does his duty just because it his is duty. If a good will, evenif with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing and only thegood will were left. . . then, like a jewel, it would still shine forth byitself, as something that has its full worth in itself (8).- The worth of a good will does depend on its effects in world:if with its greatest efforts [a good will] should yet achieve nothing andonly the good will were left. . . then, like a jewel, it would still shineforth by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself. Usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add anything to this worth nortake anything away from it (8)- a good will conform with the government behaviors which would be a moral principle. - "if with its greatest efforts(a good will ) should you achieve nothing and only the good will were left.. (8)"- a good will still has a - a good person isn't interested into a good efect, he she is just being good- even if it didn't achieve anything in the world- whether or not the good will achieved anything in the world -is not saying when the results have good effects but he is saying whether a good will achieve a good result doesnot determine the goodness of the will. -determine solely by your moral duty whether or not it will bring out the beset result. - - Why do humans have the power to reason?Now in a being that has reason and a will, if the proper end of naturewere [that beings] . . . happiness, then nature would have hit upon avery bad arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry outthis purpose (8-9).- digress, why is that we could reason.. surely not because its the best way to b e happy, he thinks that if nature/god point is to be happy, then instinct would have been better than to having the capacity to reason.since reason is nevertheless given to us a practical faculty, that is, asone that is to influence the will; then . . . the true vocation of reasonmust be to produce a will that is good, not perhaps as a means to otherpurposes, but good in itself, for which reason was absolutely necessary(10)....
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 04/14/2008.
- Spring '08