Question

Why is freedom a presupposition of morality (a “postulate of practical reason”)? Does the development of good habits and “Character”—as in Aristotle—mean that we are not acting freely? Does “freedom” in Kant mean that we are free to choose anything? What restrictions does he place on this freedom?

Answer 1

• “Freedom is the key to the explanation of the autonomy of the will” (Solomon et al 309). In reference to the above statement, Kant explains that there would be no any moral repercussions in case the agent in question had no freedom to choose.
• In his defense of freedom, Kant states ‘ought implies can’ meaning that suggesting that one ought to do something automatically implies that they have the freedom to choose whether to do it. The other notion of this notion of freedom is autonomy. Kant explains that absolute morality can only be a product of reason driven by good will as opposed to motive or interest in the outcome.
• As such, good will and practical reason combine to form the basis of morality. However, since people can easily be inclined to act for the sake of duty, Kant strongly states that a moral agent’s choice of action must be autonomous. The idea of freedom as discussed here refers to the ability to make a decision independent of any external influence such as emotion or material benefit, which automatically disqualifies an act as moral.
  
• In reference to Kant’s ideology, human beings have free will and it informs their decision making. In fact, free will is what separates rational beings from other animals. It also means that people can do whatever they want but with certain limitations.
• The first limitation is the space, which limits one’s ability to navigate automatically. Likewise, nobody has the ability to travel through time so that makes for another major setback to freedom of choice. One’s state of health is yet another limit to the exercise of free will; a nervous breakdown could severely hinder decision making, for example.
• Earlier philosopher Aristotle sees morality in terms of virtue of character driven by reason. In Kant’s view, an agent who develops values such as courage in order to perform a good deed is not acting independently since that inclination takes away his free will. Therefore, a courageous act does not qualify as good without qualification in deontological ethics.
• Virtuous character is desirable and Kant admits that; however, it is not considered moral since it is largely influenced by external conditions such as physical appearance, mental state, or luck and not by good will. However, it is to be understood that Aristotle’s version of the highest good echoes Kant’s notion that happiness may sometimes qualify as morality since both are expected to go together in certain circumstances.
• His ethics are different to Aristotle because to Kant you are not necessarily free to do anything; you are only free to act autonomously within the moral law. To Aristotle as long as you had a good character and a strong will then you were considered free. Morality is based off different situations to Aristotle instead of the law. According to Kant we must be free only to create the moral principles. Personal desires should never be addressed because they are not apart of the good will.
• In my opinion I will side more with Aristotle because I like his view on the development of good character. Just because a person does not follow the law does not mean they cannot be a good person.