The difference between a "pure moral philosophy" and an "anthropology of
morals" is their basis for evaluation. The former is based on logic and theory, devoid of all
things empiracle. The latter is entirely empiracle, based on things of experience or
measurement. This distintion is necesary in order to determine whether any action is
morally good. That cannot be determined when there is empiracle influence present
"because morals themselves remain exposed to corruption of all sorts as long as this
guided thread is lacking, this ultimate norm for moral judgement." (vii)
      Kant believed that the only the thing that could be considered good without
qualification was a good will. "For if any action is to be morally good, it is not enough that
it should conform to the moral law - it must be done for the sake of the moral law."(viii)
In this he was saying that sometime an action may conform to what is good(I may let
someone go ahead of me in the breakfast line) but have bad motivations(I want to be late
getting to class.) In order to be truly good I have to do good only for the sake of doing
good(I saw that the person behind me looked hungry and allowed their hunger to be
satisfied before mine out of the goodness of my heart.) He later explains this quite clearly,
"A good will is not good because of what it effects of accomplishes-because of its fitness
for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone-that is, good in
itself." (3)
      Also, actions that we have an inclination for do not have the moral worth that
actions that we do purely out of duty have because we would be doing them whether or
not they were good. In the example of a grocery store owner, he would clearly not
overcharge an inexperiences shopper. He could do it out of the inclination to treat all
people equally. He could also do it out of the moral duty to be honest. But, in this case he
does it purely out of the self interest of not losing profit due to bad business practices.


Back to
Philosophy page

Ryan's Writings main page
Interpretation of Preface and Chapter 1 of Immanuel Kant's Moral Law
by
Ryan Cofrancesco