Topics Philosophers

Question Why is Schiller's reductio ad absurdum of Kant's argument considered unfair: “I like to serve my friends but unfortunately I do so by inclination. And so I am bothered by the thought that I am not virtuous. There is no other way but this! You must seek to despise them. And do with repugnance what duty bids you.” Kant does argue that for an action to have moral worth and elicit our moral esteem it must be done from duty and not from inclination. Surely then, because Schiller serves his friends by inclination and not from duty, according to Kant he is not virtuous?

Accepted:
March 22, 2012

Comments

It is unfair for two reasons, at least.First of all, a moral action for Kant is one that is motivated byduty, however, it may be in accordance with inclination. These twomotivations, that is, may be in agreement as to their 'direction'.The better the world is in terms of its moral organisation -- themore it is like a kingdom of ends -- the more these will align.Friendship is one of the ways that a world can be morally organised.This leads us to the second unfairness: friendship is not simplymorally irrelevant. For example, if a friend of mine behaves like anjerk, he or she doesn't stop being a friend. Instead I forgive, orhelp. I have committed my friendship to this person, and that moralcommitment is part of the nature of friendship, surely.