Greg Detre
25/5/01
good will = acting out of good motives
duty = acting out of reverence for the law
genuinely vs reluctantly honest shopkeeper
reverence = motive
doesn't want reverence to be another desire
want it on a different footing from the other desires
law = prior to your reverence for it
don't do it because desire to do what�s right
law of reasonableness
do what is right just because we can't help acting on what we take to be reasonable because we�re rational agenmts
we�re somehow drawn towards it les contingently than by desire
just as don't need extra motivation to act out of self-interest � people can be motivated by desires, also the pull of reasons
reverence as desire = too contingent
morality as branch of reason
ignores sentiments (Hume + Williams)
motive of duty = motive of doing something right because
principle of reasonableness applies to all rational beings
\ respect principle of universal rationality
so the reason that we act by must conform with this universal reasonableness
�/span> act in accordance with maxims taken as universal laws
gap: impartiality of concern
just because moral rules should be universalisable doesn't mean we should be impartial about interests
partial interests aren't rational
law of morality is there to regulate the non-rational parts of ourselves
having a due regard for others� interests could be universalised
what about �stealing when hungry� � problem for Kant
natural actions cause problems, e.g. murder, rape
false promising: human conditioning
promising isn't a real thing: a gesture and your belief in me
if false promising = universal, no belief, so no promising
celibacy to worship God � might will that everyone does
release debtor from debt � the law would eradicate notion of debt �/span> morally bad action
rational alien � duty different???
CI = a test of maxims
so aliens might start by consdiering different possible actions
acts describable in different ways
= criticism
but also �/span> � flexibility
different cultures
choose different subset of rules
from within the same general regulations
talk to amoralist
amoralist = irrational
integrity in Kant � same problems
do all consequentialist theories have problems with absolute rights???