Goodwill According To Kant’S Philosophy

Goodwill according to Kant’s philosophy

Surely you have ever heard the mythical question: ‘’ What do you want to be in life?’Maybe, even something you have questioned‘ ’What do I want to be?’’ There are countless responses, little ones always aspire to be something ‘’ large in life ’’, soccer players, actors, plane pilots, rich simply … most answers are usually similar but what about happiness? Nobody wants to be happy? Or is it something that everyone wants but nobody intends to achieve properly? Do not be misunderstood, dear reader, in this essay I do not intend to offer an exact guide, ”20 steps to achieve happiness”, but a new reflection window was opened, the same that opened to me after reading theGroundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Let’s start at the beginning: conceptualization. ‘’ Status of pleasant spiritual and physical satisfaction ’’. Thus, happiness by the SAR is defined. For everything that is happiness, since it is a cluster of emotions, feelings and sensations, it seems that the significance (probably more read) is very simple.

Can there be or could there be a universal idea about what happiness is? Yes, and there we have it, but I really consider that it is impossible for a single idea to cover a “ something ” so great, even though precisely to facilitate our communication and understanding and avoid defining all those things as “ something ” ” ‘It is that this name has been given, although we must always take into account that for each person it is different: there are those who are happy with a new car and who are because a friend gives them a handkerchief with their smell.

Happiness is a concept that has been banalized over time, but Kant revives its meaning in this work. Human beings have different values, whether they are considered good or bad, but we have them and, although happiness has been defined as a concept apart, as a state or sensation that we can reach according to our goals, it seems that no one says anything about thevalues.

Happiness in Kant is something a little controversial, since your search can make us really happy or not, everything depends on how we do it.

Kant considers that happiness can be achieved for both oneself and the rest, always through morality. It is a fixed idea that maintains among all its claims. Establishes two ways through which we can become worthy of being happy: law and virtue. Before defining both concepts, I would like to highlight that ‘’ decent ’’ being. Isn’t happiness the same as a dignified happiness? Certainly it seems that not, not all people who can be considered happy (which is already enough) have a dignified or, valid happiness for Kant. So who deserves to be considered worthy? Those who follow the mentioned methods. The law is, according to the philosopher, the ‘’ set of conditions under which the discretion of one can recall with the discretion of another according to a universal law of freedom ’’ ’’. That is, only those who to seek their happiness take into account and respect the rest, will achieve decent happiness, justice prevails.

On the other hand, we have virtue. The duties of the same can only be demanded internally by each person, under their own decision. This is what we know in Kant and, also generally as ethics. Each person has their own way of acting, in some cases based on the exercise of their actions on ethics and others not so much;Only the former are worthy of achieving happiness, that decent happiness that is spoken.

Base our actions on ethics serves to act under good precepts. There is nothing that can be considered completely good, unless we are referring to goodwill. All our facets, peculiarities, ways of acting, in short, everything that forms the character, even if it is optionally good, can become the opposite if it is not based on a good will. The same, says Kant, occurs for example with the gifts of fortune.

” The power, wealth, honor, health itself and the complete satisfaction and content of the State itself, under the name of happiness, give value, and sometimes arrogance, if there is no good will that rectifies andaccommodate to a universal purpose the influence of that happiness and with him the principle of all of the action;Without counting that a reasonable and impartial spectator, when contemplating the uninterrupted Bienandanzes of a being that does not hold the slightest feature of a pure and good will, can never have satisfaction, and thus it seems to constitute the goodwill the indispensable condition that makes usworthy of being happy.’19

Under the justification of happiness as the ultimate end, we carry out many actions that, if not based on goodwill they would not be worth anything. After reading this fragment, such a statement may arise but if we investigate and go a little further, other issues also arise: only the acts carried out under good will produce happiness? So what are there of those who are happy after performing deleznable acts?

Under the pure Kantian vision, it seems clear that these people would not be happy, although they themselves consider yes;It is a mirage, since the actions that are not based on goodwill, as we said at first, cannot provide happiness. This together with ethicality are indispensable requirements to achieve Kantian happiness, as we will see later.

‘’ Goodwill is not good for what it makes or performs, it is not good for its adaptation to achieve some purpose that we have proposed;It is good for wanting, that is, it is good in itself. Considered by itself, it is, without comparison, much more valuable than everything that through it could verify for benefit or grace of some inclination and, if you want, of the sum of all the inclinations.’Page 20

Returning to what has been said above, good will has an intrinsic value, far beyond everything that is achieved by carrying it out, it is a value that does not disappear even when no action has been carried out under the same intention. It is good, it possesses that value and, it is through which all our actions should be based -with a claim to achieve a ultimate goal as we will say in this case that is happiness. So what about those people who do not present good will in their actions? And those that threaten the rest? We could ensure that from the Kantian vision they are not happy, rather they could not be, although they themselves believe that they are because they feel happiness when they commit delectable acts that threaten human dignity (robberies, deceptions, lies …). It is not that we think before acting whether our will is good, it should simply be naturally, it should be our way of facing situations taking into account that our purpose is happiness and this is only achieved through goodwill.