My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

November 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Rally, rally, piitcher's name is Sally... | Main | The White Sox »

October 17, 2005

Comments

Suchi Gandhi

According to Kant, the only thing that can be completely good is a good will. Because of this Kant would believe that the unsympathetic duty-doer is the person who has a greater moral worth. He expresses that even good acts and good things can be put to bad use. Our acting with good will has value in itself alone. Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination. The act of a person who overcomes a lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the act of a person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. A person's moral worth is therefore greater if their will does not come from a self inclination.

Ansu Satpathy

Kant would say that the unsympathetic-duty doer has the greater moral worth. The only thing that can be "considered good without limitation" is good will, and therefore he might say that the unsympathetic-duty doer has has a true sense of moral worth, whereas the sympathetic-duty doer has a superficial grasp of the matter. This loose hold, instigated by the "warm fuzzy feeling" may be twisted so that it is in fact no longer even good. What if the warm fuzzy feeling follows the action of building a nuclear bomb?

Michael Smetana

The unsympathetic duty doer would be said to have more moral worth if looked at according to Kant's view. The person who gets a warm fuxxy feeling for helping someone at first chance is not really showing moral worth, rather showing that they want to feel pleasure from the act. That "warm fuzzy feeling" they get can be obtained from many things. Though the person is being a good samaritan he is not because of a moral obligation. The other person, although they may be miserable helping knows it is a moral obligation. Their moral worth is greater, because they do the deeds even though nothing positive is obtained for them.

amanda carne

Kant apppears to favor the unsympathetic duty-doer because that person must overcome their feelings of misery to do what is considered right or moral. The other person is acting out of impulse rather than thinking it out thoroughly and then acting upon it. The goodness that creates moral worth is greater with a person who does not do what they are naturally inclined to do. It takes a person of greater worth to rise against their impulses to do the right thing.

Christine Pinheiro

Kant would consider the Unsympathetic Duty-Doer to have the greater moral worth, because she is acting out of a good will. For Kant, a good will does not consist of feeling sympathetic to the plight of others or in having a natural moral sense that takes pleasure in virtue, but in choosing what is right even (and especially) in the absence of outside incentives. Kant believes that actions based in feelings are less worthy in part because they are not consistent: if a person loses the "warm fuzzies," there is no guarantee that that person will continue to do good.

Allison Ziola

Kant believes the Unsympathetic Duty-Doer’s actions have greater moral worth because this person is helping others only because she feels morally obligated to, even though she doesn’t feel sympathy towards others and doesn’t receive pleasure out of doing it. She has a good will, and therefore moral worth. Because the Sympathetic Duty-Doer’s only intention was to feel the “warm fuzzy feeling” his action does not have moral worth because as Kant said “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it.” He expected the good feeling that accompanied the good deed, so he only helped others for his own sake not because he felt morally compelled to.

Justin Litz

Kant definitely believes that the duty-doer’s actions have greater moral worth. For Kant, duty is very important. So important that Kant says all good action is driven by a sense of duty. Personal feelings are of no matter. What matters in a given situation is doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do. I could really hate helping mowing my grandmother’s lawn, because she is way too picky, but it may be the morally right thing to do, therefore I should do it.

Justin Litz

Kant definitely believes that the duty-doer’s actions have greater moral worth. For Kant, duty is very important. So important that Kant says all good action is driven by a sense of duty. Personal feelings are of no matter. What matters in a given situation is doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do. I could really hate helping mowing my grandmother’s lawn, because she is way too picky, but it may be the morally right thing to do, therefore I should do it.

tre tomaszewski

hey, guess what I'm gonna say!

Kant feels that the unsympathetic do-gooder has a greater moral worth becasue she is doing it out of reason and for the fact that it is what should be done. There is no personal benefit which she hopes to gain. In fact, one could say that this would be the most moral person, as they are actually going against what they feel, and still doing it, without a "fuzzy feeling" or any such pleasure. So way to go ultra-moral-for-no-reason-person, although it's not what you want, per se, Kant is smiling at you...

Brian Kim

According to Kant, the fact that the unsympathetic duty-doer helps those in need because she feels it is her duty makes her actions have greater moral worth. Also, as Kant says in section one, "a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes." This notion is outlined in the sympathetic duty-doer's case, as she only does good deeds because of the effect it produces. Thus, Kant places greater moral worth to the unsympathetic duty-doer.

Jacob Rukin

Kant feels that the unsympathetic duty-doer has greater moral worth. This is because the person who gets the warm-fuzzy feeling is doing the act not just for the moral value in it but for his pleasure as well. The unsympathetic person, on the other hand, is fulfilling what he considers his moral obligation despite the fact that he doesn’t like doing it. He does it even though he personally receives nothing positive form it.

Jim Brodzik

According to Kant's essay, the unsympathetic duty-doer has the greater moral worth. This is because the person who does things not because he/she wants to, but because he/she feels morally obligated to do it. The sympathetic do-gooder, on the other hand, does these moral actions because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. That feeling shows that the do-gooder is only preforming the actions to get some sort of self benefit from the actions. This does not follow Kant's view of the most moral person, who does things because they need to be done, not because they want to do them.

Jim Brodzik

According to Kant's essay, the unsympathetic duty-doer has the greater moral worth. This is because the person who does things not because he/she wants to, but because he/she feels morally obligated to do it. The sympathetic do-gooder, on the other hand, does these moral actions because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. That feeling shows that the do-gooder is only preforming the actions to get some sort of self benefit from the actions. This does not follow Kant's view of the most moral person, who does things because they need to be done, not because they want to do them.

Amy Kuo

The Unsympathetic Duty-Doer’s action has greater moral worth because she only helps for moral reasons, not any intuitive emotional inclination. According to Kant, moral actions follow “moral law,” and people would act “for the sake of the law.” He believes real morals have no empirical basis (like the “immediate inclination” emotion of the Sympathetic Do-Gooder); decisions should only use logic to maximize moral “content”/worth. Since Kant also claims reason limits people’s ability to reach happiness, using logic to make moral decisions means not factoring in emotions like happiness (or a “warm fuzzy feeling”).

Drake Baer

The person who agonizes over doing good things is the dude of better moral worth. He is performing an action because it is what the moral law requires of him, whereas the person who does things for a warm fuzzy feeling is taking action for selfish reasons.

Kris Czaja

Kant would say that the unsympathetic do-gooder has the higher moral worth because they have the feeling of duty. This feeling of duty could be interpreted as what Kant calls a good will. The person performing the action for the purpose of the warm fuzzy feeling is motivated by something other than their will. If that feeling were to for some reason no longer come about after performing the action they would stop doing it.

Christopher Bestian

Kant believes that a duty is best performed when doing that duty for a law or moral reason. What's not a law or moral reason (in Kant's case) is being sympathetic towards someone or soemthing. A good will is a will tha acts out of respect for the law (azs mentioned in lecture). So when performing a good will, you are satisfying two ideas: 1. you are acting on a maxim and 2. acting on a univesal law at the same time. So, in our situation, the person that is doing the moral good (according ot Kant) is the unsympathetic duty-doer.
hehe, i said duty.

Peter Hudepohl

According to Kant, the unsympathetic duty doer has greater moral worth. Despite their dislike for helping other people, they still realize its importance and act on it. This shows a strong moral will, unlike the sympathetic do-gooder, who could be described as an egoist. For the sypathetic do-gooder, their actions are beneficial to themselves, and so they have more reason to help others reagardless of the actual value to others of this help.

Sarah Pica

According to Kant, the Unsympathetic Duty-Doer has a "good will", making his or her actions more morally correct. This "good will" the unsympathetic Duty-Doer has forces her to do what is right simply because it is right, and for no other reason. He or she may begrudingly do the right thing, but even the fact that he or she is doing it begrudingly supports the fact that the individual is doing the action simply because it is right.

The Sympathetic Do-Gooder, on the other hand, has an alterior motive. His or her "maxim" is questionable. The individual doesn't do the act for the act itself, but instead for his or her own personal motive.

Beth Labuszewski

Kant believes that the unsympathetic-duty doer is acting morally while the sympathetic do gooder is acting in accord with his own feelings. THe do gooder is acting selfishly as he is only acting in respect to his own feelings he gets for taking action. Kant says that a good with has "full worth in itself". The duty doer acts only becouase of the moral obligation of his good will and not on self inclination.

Daniel Zenisek

Kant would appreciate the moral obligations that the unsympathetic duty-doer assigns themselves. That person, unlike the warm fuzzy seeker, isn’t reacting to the warm fuzzy feelings that come from doing good, but instead a greater self worth. The warm fuzzy seeker is reminiscent of a utilitarian – someone pleasing themselves for the sake of pleasure, not a moral standard. Furthermore, Kant would suggest that simply because of the fact that the unsympathetic duty-doer responds negatively to the idea of doing good, they’re truly onto something. There’s even greater reason to suggest that actions must be stirred by something greater than the self – those of moral obligation.

jim stage

Kant makes it pretty clear that he'd rank the Unsympathetic Duty-Doer (whom I shall refer to as "unsymp") above the Sympathetic Do-Gooder (whom I shall refer to as "sympa"). The bold faced reason for this is that true moral worth stems from commitment to duty, acting out of good will regardless of personal emotional concern. I find it interesting that, like Prof. Sussman mentioned in class, the more joy we take in doing good - dutiful or not - the less moral worth it seems to have.
Is it truly impossible to love doing good? Though this is probably exceedingly rare in almost every society, does that make it impossible? Kant seems to say that only in situations where 1.)our emotions/personal desires at the time and, 2.)our sense of moral duty conflict can there be a real demonstration of pure, unadulterated GOOD WILL. Thus, good will cannot manifest itself in someone who might enjoy fulfilling moral duties so much that they would make it a career - like so many missionaries, peace corps workers, and the like. That would be one argument - that people like Mother Theresa and Jesus, individuals who totally gave themselves over to serving others for a lifestyle, DID NOT SHOW GOOD WILL. Since they claimed to find fulfillment and purpose in what they did, and that it brought them joy, they must not have been showing good will.
We must be screwed then. If Jesus and Mother Theresa didn't show good will, what chance do we have?

jim stage

Kant makes it pretty clear that he'd rank the Unsympathetic Duty-Doer above the Sympathetic Do-Gooder. The bold faced reason for this is that true moral worth stems from commitment to duty, acting out of good will regardless of personal emotional concern. I find it interesting that, like Prof. Sussman mentioned in class, the more joy we take in doing good - dutiful or not - the less moral worth it seems to have.
Is it truly impossible to love doing good? Though this is probably exceedingly rare in almost every society, does that make it impossible? Kant seems to say that only in situations where 1.)our emotions/personal desires at the time and, 2.)our sense of moral duty conflict can there be a real demonstration of pure, unadulterated GOOD WILL. Thus, good will cannot manifest itself in someone who might enjoy fulfilling moral duties so much that they would make it a career - like so many missionaries, peace corps workers, and the like. This means that people like Mother Theresa and Jesus, individuals who totally gave themselves over to serving others for a lifestyle, DID NOT SHOW GOOD WILL. Since they claimed to find fulfillment and purpose in what they did, and that it brought them joy, they must not have been showing good will.
We must be screwed then. If Jesus and Mother Theresa didn't show good will, what chance do we have?

Carla Rubalcava

According to Kant, the unsympathetic duty-doer is the person whose actions have a greater moral worth. The former does idoes good acts based on her feelings and the "warm fuzziness". The duty doer acts on the moral obligation of her good will. She helps those in need reluctantly and miserable becasue she feels it is her duty. Immediate inclination, or acions based on feelings, are seen by Kant as less worthy.

Karl VanRoekel

According to Kant the unsympathetic duty-doer's actions have a greater moral worth. Despite thier negative disposition for doing something that helps others, they do it none the less. Overcoming those feelings according to Kant is much greater in terms of worth than someone to derives a "pleasure" which in this case is the "warm-fuzzy feeling" the do-gooder gets from helping someone. The duty-doer is fulfilling what they believe to be thier moral obligation to help and therefore, according to Kant, makes thier actions of greater moral worth.

The comments to this entry are closed.