MY PERSONAL PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION ON MORALITY,DUTY and LAW
I must commence by saying that my own position on morality,duty and law is heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant although the starting frame of reference is akin to that of Jalaluddin Rumi.
In so far as rejection of eudaimonism(the ultimate goal of all of one's actions is one's personal happiness)is concerned I am in tandem with David Hume but my understanding goes so was Kant!Happiness cannot be the ultimate purpose of morality.Suppose now that for a being possessed of reason and will the real purpose of nature were hispreservation,his welfare or in a word his happiness.In that case nature would have hit on a very bad arrangement by choosing reason in the creature to carry out this purpose.For all the actions he has to perform with this end in view and the whole rule of this behaviour would have been mapped out for him far more accurately by instinct an din the end question could have been maintained far more surely by instinct than by reason.
The function of reason in ethics is not to inform how best to choose means to some further end.It is to produce a will that is good in itself.And a will is good only if it is motivated by duty!Good will as believe it is the only thing that is good withoutqualification.Fortune, power,intelligence,courage and all the traditional values can be used to bad ends-even happiness itself can be corrupting!!!It is not what it achieves that constitutes the goodness of a good will-good will is good in itself alone!!!
Even if by some special disfavour of destiny or by niggardly endowment of stepmotherly nature this will is entirely lacking in power to carryout its intentions,if by its utmost effort it still accomplishesnothing and only good will is left....even then it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself!!!
GOOD WILL IS THE HIGHEST GOOD AND THE CONDITION OF ALL OTHER GOODS INCLUDING HAPPINESS!!!
If a will is good only when motivated by duty,we must ask what it is to act out of duty.A first answer¨ is to say that it is to act as the moral law prescribes.But this is not enough.There is a distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting from the motive of duty.A shopkeeper who chooses honesty as the best policy or philanthropist who takes delight in pleasing others may do actions that are in accord with duty but they are not motivated by reverence for it.Actions of this kind however amiable have no moral worth!!!Worth of character is shown only when someone does good not for inclination but from duty!!!A man who is wholly wretched and longs to die but preserves his life for the sake of duty!!!That in my view has real moral worth!!!!
It is the painfulness of well doing that is the hallmark of virtue!!!
A person who is acting out of duty is obeying not a hypotheticalimperative but a categorical imperative.An overarching imperative thatdiscriminates between virtuous and vicious hypothetical imperatives.As Kant says:
ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO A MAXIM WHICH YOU CAN AT THE SAME TIME WILL TO BECOME A UNIVERSAL LAW!!!!
I believe that one should act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other,never simply as means but always at the same time an end.
This formulation in my assessment rules out major world evils-slavery,racism ,caste system,suicide and of course homicide and wars!!!!
Prof.Ashok Jahnavi Prasad
