Kant argues that will motivate action. This is a statement
that I firmly argues with, many times people have thoughts or ideas of what
they want to do but without the actual will to do it the never carry out that
idea or plan. Will is something that aims to produce result, in fact without
will there would probably be no results at all.
Like we were discussing in class goodwill will happen regards less of
the outcome. If we were to give a diabetic a donut but we didn’t know his
health status and he got sick, giving the diabetic to donut was the a good will
even thought it caused him harm. We had no previous knowledge of the person’s
health and therefore it could not have been bad from our standpoint. It seems
odd to think that we still had good will even after harming someone, but it is
true. We did not know that person would get sick and all we wanted to do was
share some delicious donuts. What do you guys think about the principle? Is it
wrong to think that we still did something good even though someone was harmed?
And just remember that it could also work the other way
around. For example if someone was driving recklessly and ran over a criminal that
was on his way to rob a store it does not make it okay that he was ran over. At
the time he got ran over he was just a pedestrian on the road. In the end he
might have bad intentions but the criminal was not harming anyone while
walking. So what do you guys think about these principles?
I agree with that argument. Like you mentioned in the situation with the robber getting run over. If you look at it from the drivers point of view, he had no knowledge of the robbers intentions. For all he cared he could of ran over anybody. He never had the intention of stopping a crime from happening. So even if you were to praise him for stopping a possible criminal he wouldn't deserve it.
ReplyDeleteI think that good will and good deeds are two completely different things. I don't think its right that you can run over a robber and be considered a good deed because even if you have good intentions, your actions are not morally right. Good intentions doesn't justify your actions and it doesn't make it okay to run over someone as long as they're robbers or criminals. Ultimately, I think that it is all about actions, if you have bad intentions it wouldn't be considered wrong as long as you don't act it out. Its the same concept for good intentions, if you do wrong actions with good intentions it still wouldn't make it a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI that if your intentions are good and if your heart is in the right place even if you harm somebody it is okay. Like in the doughnut situation if I knew that the person was diabetic I would have never offered them a doughnut or even be eating them in front of them. Good intentions or good will is based on not hurting others but helping others. My intention was not to harm them by offering the doughnut but rather to have them enjoy the delicious treat with me. But some responsibility falls on that person as well because if they know that they are diabetic and don't tell me and I give them the doughnut then that is their fault.
ReplyDeleteGood will and deeds are separate. If you have good will to help someone and it ends up hurting them physically or mentally, there is nothing wrong with that because you had all good intentions, good deeds if giving something to lets say the community that get used and helps other people more than it hurts people. A good will is great to have but you should have good deeds over coming your good will.
ReplyDeleteGood will is the most important thing when looking at an action, however the outcome can hold just as much weight. I do not agree with Kant about the outcome not a mattering. If the outcome does not matter what is the point in doing anything. Not looking at the outcome is just childish. The way people judge were a person is mature is by looking at if they think a problem before they act. Though outcome is not most important thing, it is a fact though.
ReplyDelete