FREE ESSAY ON KANT SEWCTION 1

KANT SEWCTION 1

Kant starts off making two distinctions regarding kinds of knowledge, empirical/rational
and formal/material. Empirical or experience-based knowledge is contrasted with rational
knowledge, which is independent of experience. This distinction between empirical and
rational knowledge rests on a difference in sources of evidence used to support the two
different kinds of knowledge. Formal is contrasted with material knowledge. Formal
knowledge has no specific subject matter; it is about the general structure of thinking
about any subject matter whatsoever. Material knowledge is of a specific subject matter,
either nature or freedom. Rational knowledge is metaphysics, of which there are two
branches, the metaphysics of nature and of morals. The metaphysics of nature is supposed
to provide rational knowledge of the laws of nature. These are not empirical laws; they
are more like universal principles of nature that any empirical physical would
presuppose, such as that no event in nature occurs without a natural cause. The
metaphysics of freedom is supposed to provide knowledge of the laws of freedom. These are
the universal rules which free agents devise to govern them. Thus, Kant's grounding, his
initial attempt at a critique of rational reason, is an investigation of the possibility
of purely rational knowledge of morals. 
Take, for example, the Moral Rule: Thou shalt not lie. If the moral law is valid as the
basis of moral obligation or duty, then it must be necessary. Kant using the word
necessity means that the rule obligates or binds whatever the conditions or in all
circumstances. It also means that the rule applies to all rational beings and not only to
human beings. In this second sense we can say that the rule is universally binding. So in
fact, moral rules are universal and necessary. If a moral rule is to be universal and
necessary, the moral law must be derived from concepts of pure reason alone. Therefore,
if a moral rule or law can only be derived from reason alone, there must be a pure moral
philosophy whose task is to provide such a derivation. In the Grounding, Kant sets
himself the task of establishing the supreme principle of morality from which to make
such a derivation.
According to Kant good will and only a good will is intrinsically good. Kant
distinguishes two different types of intrinsic or extrinsic goods. If a thing is only
extrinsically good, then it is possible for that thing not to be good, or to be bad or
evil. Intrinsic goodness is goodness in itself; if a thing is intrinsically good, its
goodness is essential to it; and its goodness is not a function of factors other than
itself.
Kant holds that only a good will, not happiness, is intrinsically good. The idea that it
is reason rather than natural impulse which guides action for the sake of happiness is
false. Parts of a person perform their functions by surviving and this provides happiness
for the person. Reason functions poorly in serving that purpose; instinct does better
job. Natural instinct rather than reason provides better for happiness. 
Kant distinguishes between having a reason to act and acting for a reason. The motivating
reason is the reason for which agent acts. A justifying reason is the reason that
justifies, warrants, provides the criterion of rightness for the action. The agent's
motivating reason might or might not provide a justifying reason for his action. Kant
then defines three types of motivating reasons. One type of non-moral motivation is
natural motivation. Action in accord with duty is motivated by immediate or direct
inclination. Direct inclination includes such motives as love, sympathy, instinct for
self-preservation, or the desire for happiness. The other type of non-moral motivation is
prudence. An action in accord with duty, but motivated by prudence, is action motivated
by the pursuit of self-interest or happiness. Since all human beings naturally desire
happiness, prudential motivation is indirectly motivated by a natural motivation. Moral
motivation is the third type of motivation. The action is not only in accord with duty,
but motivated by duty, done from duty, or for sake of duty. The agent's motivating
reason, the reason for which he acts, is that the action is what morality demands and he
wants above all to do what reason demands.