Question

What is “duty”? How do we distinguish duties from other acts that we think we should do? What does Kant mean by “acting for the sake of duty” (rather than “in accordance with duty”)?

Answer 1

• Duty is defined as how morality or ethics presents itself to creatures like human beings who are partially rational however partially animal and therefore incline to act from tendencies. Morality would not come into view as duty to an absolutely rational being. For creatures like human beings, a good will is a motivation that proceeds from duty.
• To give details on the concept of proceeding "from duty," four cases have been distinguished by Kant. The first case involves proceeding in contradiction of duty. This kind of act without a doubt is deficient of moral worth.
• The second case involves proceeding in line with the duty though not as of duty. In this scenario, the act carried out is what duty demands; however the agent has no instantaneous leaning to perform the moral act, though sees that carrying out the moral act will fulfill his objectives and performs the moral act as a way to please his preferences. For instance, a shopkeeper can return the correct amount of money to his customers for the reason that he believes that repute for honesty will get him greater profits sooner or later, and he is truthful and honest so as to make the most of his long-run profit.This type of act also does not have any moral worth.
• The third case is an act that is also compliant with duty, however there the agent is enthused to carry out the moral deed for the reason that he has an instant leaning to do so. As per the example provided by Kant, let's assume that the shopkeeper likes his customers and is sincere in his transactions with them for the reason that he wishes to do good things to those he likes. Perhaps, more surprisingly, Kant believes the actions of the third case are also deficient of moral worth.
• The situations in the fourth case are those in which the entire inclinations of the agent go in opposition to performing one's duty; however the agent carries out his duty at any rate. The example provided by Kant concerns a person who is very gloomy regarding the prospects of his life and wishes to kill himself, though reveal that his duty is not to take your own life and performs his duty against leaning. According to Kant, in this scenario, the action has its authentic and legitimate moral worth.
• According to Kant, the good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty and that acting for the sake of duty must be distinguished from acting out of mere inclination or desire.
• According to Kant, acting for the sake of duty does not simply mean to act in line with duty. For example, not thieving farther than fear of penalty does not fall in the category of acting for the sake of duty. Similar is the things with helping somebody out of adoration and not out of esteem for the ethical law “help other human beings.”
• Kant tells us that it means acting out of reverence for law that is the moral law. Duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for the law as such. And the essential characteristic of law as such is universality, which is a strict universality which does not admit of exceptions. Therefore, a man’s actions, if they are to have moral worth, must be performed out of reverence for the law.