Duty vs. Inclination: A Moral Dilemma Explored

I’m not conversant with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of ethics or Hegel’s. What I observe though is the fact that every time issues of what is right is being discussed, the “Golden Rule” is used as a basis through which other frameworks are weighed. So, to jumpstart, let me quote verbatim from the Gospels and cite the Golden Rule: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Of course, as anybody who reads and understands the statement, this is based on an a priori fundamental basis for morality.

It presupposes knowledge of right and wrong (good and bad) as inherent to any man. “The Golden Rule demands that one’s actions conform to one’s own standard, whereas Kant’s moral imperative places the standard for moral good elsewhere. ” It is very subtle. One does not have to look outside of him or herself in order to execute what needs to be done.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Duty

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Every person is the standard. It is not to suggest though that good, or right and wrong, is relative or dependent on individuals in different occasions or circumstances. It simply states that morality is innate in man.

We are moral beings, or else, it doesn’t make sense for us to discuss ethics. “A universal moral law must exist because we universally imagine a universal moral law to exist; we would not all agree it exists if there were not a moral law within us that we are observing.

” To understand what duty is, let us borrow Immanuel Kant’s definition. In his book (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals); he explains what the common understanding is, and what is meant by duty and moral obligations. His explanation of “duty,” is that, “it is the necessity to act out of reverence for the (moral) law.

” For him (Kant), it is common sense, if someone has acted out of inclination to his/herself. There is no moral value to it when an act is done out of mere inclination, he said. It’s not so difficult to see it as that, in Kant’s point of view, because a person who has done a certain thing simply because he/she feels inclined to do it (provided the action is good), is just acting out what suits his/her tastes at the moment. An individual may not be inclined to do what is right most of the time or when to do what is right is in order, because moods vary (and inclination depends on one’s feeling).

To better understand what acting out of inclination is, let us cite for example, a shop owner who keeps honest prices in his store. He does so, however, because he wanted to gather and attract customers. He may even do it for higher reasons – to be respected by his customers. The actions of this shop owner have the appearance of good. Nevertheless, since his motives are for selfish reasons and not for the sake of honesty, he may have contributed some nice things to his consumers, but the truth of the matter is, he’s just acting out of necessity.

His leanings are toward that direction because it suits his own purposes. In this case, according to Kant, the shop owner “deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem. ” According to RANDOM HOUSE Webster’s Dictionary, duty is “something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. ” This definition is not different from Kant’s view. Touching Biblical morality this time, we humans are said to be “fallen” by nature. We are all inclined towards evil (though some may argue for man’s inherent goodness).

It means that no matter how much knowledge of good we possess or how we aspire to reach certain ideals, we are – most of the time beholden to our sinful nature. This is why even our good actions, like the shop owner in our illustration above, are selfish actions. Our good intentions are dictated not by higher morals but by ends that if analyzed are plain selfishness. Maslow, in his hierarchy of needs, has his own analysis of human behavior. His theory is that man’s behavior is driven by his needs. So, when a person is merely acting from inclination, he is not acting morally. He is being capricious or whimsical not moral.

Besides, inclination as the basis for moral action cannot be depended upon considering the crimes being committed everyday and every hour. We must learn our responsibility as human beings and as neighbors to each other. To act, therefore, out of duty is morally better than waiting till we feel inclined to do the right thing. By the way, the call to duty is not a call to do the “abstract” which has the connotation of vagueness. To act out of duty is to act upon something which you know is, very clearly, the right thing to do. It is not, as some suppose, doing a thing opposed to one’s will.

Duty is built on character. When duty calls (meaning, you know what needs to be done), one has to follow that urge to respond, or otherwise, that person cannot be happy but bear the burden of having known what must be done at a given situation, but refused to act accordingly simply because he/she did not have the proclivity to do so. Which is morally better, to act out of duty or out of inclination? Since there are only these two options, we are only left with which one is better. Understanding the word “inclination” will even more leave one to opt for “duty” as morally better.

Inclination is “a liking or preference” (RANDOM HOUSE Webster’s Dictionary). Inherently “good actions” do not proceed from anybody’s preference. Our thinking when it comes to morality is influenced by relativism. What is morally necessary at one time may not be the right thing to do next time. In other words, what is right is dependent on many individuals. If this is our standard for what is morally upright then I would say we are not in a better off world when it comes to moral standards. Hence, I choose actions out of duty to be better than actions that result from preferences (inclination).

There has to be an objective standard through which actions are measured and motivated.

Reference: 1. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, available freely at Project Gutenberg translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (Jonathan Bennett's Translation of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals )Retrieved from "http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals" 2. Kant, Immanuel, The Moral Law, trans. , ed. H. J. Paton (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. , 1964), p. 57. 3. Random House “Webster’s Dictionary”, 2nd Ed. 4. http://showme. missouri. edu/~philrnj/kmerit. html