Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals By Immanuel Kant

Does the moral worth of an action come from the consequence or the thought behind that action? In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant states that “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it” but that it is motivated out of respect for the moral law (Kant 401). However, in Utilitarianism, Mill supports the claim that what makes actions good is the outcome, not the action’s initial moral worth, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent” (Mill 18). This is also called consequentialism. In order to develop a clear argument, Kant uses the example of an honest shopkeeper and distinguishes between certain premises of his argument. On the other hand, Mill states that the Greatest Happiness Principle is the supreme principle of morality through a series of arguments. After examining both sides, I agree with Mill’s argument more than Kant’s because it seems abnormal to make the claim that all things must be done …show more content…
In his scenario, these two shopkeepers both give the correct change to their customers. The first shopkeeper is honest because he doesn’t want to be caught trying to cheat his customers. The second shopkeeper is honest because he believes in the moral law. This shows the first doesn’t act from duty, but the second does, and although the consequence is the same, it is for different reasons that they perform their actions. The fact is that the first isn’t truly doing his duty, because his duty to be honest is not his reason for being honest. Even though the consequences of their actions are the same, their reasons for doing it are not. This shows how good will comes out of respect for the moral law and not just the consequences, because if the first shopkeeper knew he would not be caught cheating, he would cheat his customers. He doesn’t respect the moral law, and therefore he doesn’t have the good