Kant and Schopenhauer: Essences of Right and Wrong

In modern Philosophy, great minds have debated why people feel a need to do certain actions that they call 'right' or avoid other actions entirely that they call 'wrong'. Theories abound about morals being invented to oppress the non-elite, and to keep order in society. Others think that the only importance of morality is to keep themselves marginally above animals. Kant and Schopenhauer have other beliefs, though somewhat contradictory.

Kant begins his endeavors of explaining the morals of the people by stating that there is no other absolute good besides a Good Will. All other endeavors can be reduced to immorality in some instance. This makes Good Will an Unconditional Good. There are no instances where a Good Will can be thought of as a taint upon someone's character. He states that even if the Good Will fails to gain the desired result, the individual is still left with the shining beacon of goodness; the Good Will (Kant, 262). This leads directly into what uses a Good Will.

Morality is a unique and interesting thing to Kant. He says that a deed must have no motivations behind it or else the morality of the deed is negated (Kant, 263). Essentially, this means that if something is done for a reward, then there can be no moral value to it, no matter how good the deed is. A church lady who enjoys helping those less fortunate than her is not doing moral work. She is directly benefiting from her work. She is gaining enjoyment from her work (Thompson).

A person, also, cannot do an act out of sympathy because sympathy can be considered misleading in some instances (Kant, 263). In many densely populated areas, there are beggars who will devise a large number of tricks to play on the sympathy of those passing by. This can be anything from a heart-wrenching story, to a malnourished baby that they claim needs to be fed. If money is given to these, there is no moral good to this, especially since the other party does not need the money that was given to them expressly for the purpose of feeding that child (Thompson).

Kant says that behaviors cannot be mandated. If a child is forced to do something that appears to be moral or good, the goodness that their will would have received is not gained. They must come to the action themselves. Therefore, parents cannot make good children. They can only give their child the tools to choose to be moral themselves. For an action to be moral, there must be the possibility of suffering (Kant, 2). Martyrs are an excellent example of morality. The people who are killed in Communist Countries for standing up for the rights of others are very moral individuals. They do what they feel like they have to, even though they know there will be pain.

Commonplace good deeds are almost never moral because there is not a chance of suffering from engaging in it. If doorknobs were made of shards of glass, then holding the door open for someone would directly benefit your Good Will. However, since the worst that could happen is catching the Swine Flu (albeit highly unlikely), no moral value is in this action (Kant, 2).

I disagree with the fact that you must have a negative connotation on an action to gain any sort of moral benefit from it. If a person is raised in an environment where all of their needs are catered to, and there is no risk of harm to them, how are they to develop their Good Will? More specifically, if they are heirs or heiresses, donated to charities regularly, attend their religious ceremonies and abide by their strict traditions, are they no better than a poor individual who is stealing? Are they to be at the same level as someone who is slothful and does not contribute to society in any favorable light whatsoever?

There must be made a distinction between the two instances of acting in a moral way without fear of harm or detriment and the group that does nothing. They would be living the exact same moral life as someone who did the same in secret with the fear of being caught by the government. The only difference is the risk. For this, I propose a system of half credit for the heirs and heiresses. In this way, they are getting the benefit from their good deeds despite not being required to do them. The only way this is applicable to them, however, is if they are not doing these actions for a tax break, to impress their friends, or to benefit their own estate.

Kant also mentions a formula for determining whether something is valuable morally. Can everyone in the universe do this action at the same time? (Thompson). This question does not solve the smaller immoralities that humankind has come across. Everyone in the world could be envious at the same time. Everyone could also take up swearing and the fabric of space and time would not shred. Neither would civilization cease to exist. Negative thoughts might also be planted in everyone's head. This does not make it moral or acceptable to do.

Similar to Kant, Schopenhauer's Philosophy is not without distress. Schopenhauer believes that one must fully deny pleasures of the flesh (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This correlates directly to the views of the Christian Faith, to which he owed some of his personal views. This is the extent of their similarities, however. Schopenhauer did not think that any action could be done without motivation (Thompson). Essentially, morality boils down to denying that which is pleasurable because morality cannot flourish in the same atmosphere as bodily pleasure (Schopenhauer).

This belief is very pessimistic in nature and often turns most people away from it just by the negativity. In this instance a person cannot be moral and be happy. They must experience pain at nearly every turn and find joy in nothing to be able to live a 'Good' life. Those who endure this philosophy do so for the Divine Rewards in the afterlife. Their motivation is to deny pleasures now for pleasures plus interest later. If things are good on Earth, they will be much better in the afterlife. This pleasure bank account system does not win me over. I do not think that self-denial will lead to anything besides a small feeling of accomplishment and duty.

Pleasures should not be denied entirely. After all, an observant individual could find minute pleasures in nearly every facet of life. Only a hermit could avoid finding a small pleasure around them. Even then, in their solitude, they may find a shred of pleasure within themselves. Appreciating the beauty of the world before us cannot be immoral. After all, if we were not meant to enjoy what was put before us, it should have never been put there. If God intended us to never drink, Alcohol should have never been discovered, or better yet, never had an effect on our minds.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Philosophical Writings. New York: Continuum, 1996.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2003.

Thompson, P. "Kant." Philosophy Class. EIU, Charleston.Thompson, P. "Schopenhauer." Schopenhauer. EIU, Charleston.