Kant Traps Himself

Kant begins section 397 by stating that, “The concept of a will estimable in itself and good without regard to any further end must now be developed” (Kant, 9). Kant sees the moral content with regards to duty, only when things are done for the sake of doing them, not as a result of any external factors. He argues, rightfully so, that to preserve one’s life is a duty but Kant believes that this duty only has moral content if that person preserves it, “[W]ithout loving it” (Kant, 10). In effect, is arguing that our actions are only moral or virtuous insofar as they are done solely because of our responsibility to do them; our actions themselves must be self-sufficient.

I do not believe that Kant’s views about will and duty are anything more than theoretical. He uses the example of the person who wishes to die, but maintains themselves alive for nothing other than basic laws of self-preservation, as an example of an act with moral content. I would argue that if a person wishes to die and has yet to, then they do in fact fear suicide and their self-preservation is motivated by a fear of death. I would also contend that someone who’s life has been defined by existence for the sake of others, like Mother Teresa for example, has a much greater moral content than someone who maintains themselves alive for no reason.

I also believe that Kant traps himself when he writes, “To secure one’s own happiness is a duty” (Kant, 12). If happiness is defined as the end of all things achievable in action, then every single one of our actions is characterized by its aim towards happiness. Aristotle argued that we cannot be happy after death and so we must remain alive in order to be happy. Every step that we take to maintain ourselves alive because it would lead happiness is a step devoid of moral content according to Kant. According to Kant, we have a duty to maintain ourselves alive solely for the sake of doing so whilst having a duty to secure our own happiness. If our actions are not geared towards happiness, which by Kant’s own logic they shouldn’t be, then happiness becomes a carrot-on-a-stick and is not worth discussing.

Case in point, we can eat just enough to survive but still be unhealthy, according to Kant this would have moral content because it is solely a step towards self-preservation for no real reason. If we were unhealthy however, we’d be hard-pressed to secure happiness but if we eat enough so that we are healthy and thus happy, then suddenly our act of self-preservation has no moral content. In effect, Kant’s argument is flawed.

If everything that we do must be done for the sake of itself, then how can we do anything aimed towards securing happiness?