Mill

On class the tutor introduced the background of Mill's life. Mill did never enter any school and university. He was educated by his own father who wanted to cultivate him to be a great assessor of utilitarian. His father, James Mill, is good friend of Jeremy Bentham, so young Mill is very familiar with Bentham but he did not actually learn Bentham's utilitarian until he is 18 years old because in early life his father mainly made him learn ancient philosophy and maths. He has a very good female friend who very regularly went to meet him and talk philosophy with him but only about philosophy. No evidence indicates they have any sexual relationship, which is really amazing but it is not hard to understand in Mill's case because he and his female friend both believed that sexual activity is just animal impulse and the philosophy is the genuine taste for human being.

There are many kinds of interpretation of Mill's philosophy. Many of them believe Mill as an pure utilitarian but some think that Mill is an indirect utilitarian. But the tutor asserts there are two Mills in his life long works, one utilitarian in Utilitarianism, another liberalism in On Liberty. It's interesting.

What topic will I work on for the midterm paper? I need to make decision as early as I can. What about the difference between Mill's argument and Locke's argument on religious toleration? Is there any critique I can raise? Or, is there any other insight about their insight on toleration? Both of them indeed gave some most influential attitudes about religious toleration and also liberty, but what I concern most here is whose argument is more relevant or valuable to the contemporary debates on this issue. So, I need to clarify what is the central concern in contemporary discussion. I believe nobody really concern the religious is still the core question before philosophers but we also have reason to believe that their argument on religious toleration still have value for us. One of the most relevant topic is that of toleration of liberal.

Mill on liberty

I just read the first two chapters of Mill's On Liberty which will be the topic for tomorrow's module. Mill also takes the fallibility argument as the basic argument as Locke did in his letter but he develops a totally different theory on toleration. In letter, Locke mainly analyses the irrationality of religious intolerance and persecution from the point of magistrate. Certainly, Mill also does not claims a right of liberty of discussion from the side of victims but holds a more impartial position. Mill's defense for liberty of discussion is based on the fact of mankind's fallibility and the value of diversity. First, the silenced opinion may be right for we are not infallible. Second, the silenced may be a portion of the truth even if they are errors. Third, even the received opinion is the whole truth it still need to be contested by opposite opinions, or else it will be a dead dogma. Forth, the dogma will prevent new mental development. The argument is in utilitarian style.

philosophical project

On seminar, we talked about the fashion of citation in papers. Prof. Tan advised us to choose any kind of fashion and use it consistently. Then we had a talk with her one to one. I talked with her about how to design my philosophical project. Identify the theoretical problem by reviewing debates among philosophers and develop my own idea about this problem.

Called Prof.Yao and director Qin. I talked about the China situation with Qin. He advised me some attitudes to see it.

Canny talked about our future career, in China or oversea?

Theories of language

Theories of language
Hansen reviewed several kinds of language theories. Firstly, referential theory holds that the meaning of a ward is the object it refers to. But this theory have big problems, for instance, it cannot explain the relationship between wards which cannot referred to in reality. The second is the entity theory which has two variants, ideational theory and propositional theory. The representative is Locke. He claims that a ward represents a mental concept and a sentence stands for a mental statement. The basic element is so called mentalese. The propositional theorists like Russel and Moore asserts that sentence represents proposition which is eternal, infinite, objective.

But what Hansen really wanted to introduce is his special insight of language, especially in interpretation and translation. He introduced Quine's radical translation which claims translation is not indeterminate because there will be always several options and no reason to say one is better than others. But Davison develops a theory claiming that the basic measure of evaluating different versions of translation is the truth which is formed by the version. This means the best version should be the one which will be able to develop a more complete truth convincing it's audience.

Miaokun's husband, Zhong Zhenyu, arrived in Singapore today. We had lunch together in arts carteen.

Two classes followed directly one by one

I had a political class from 10am to 1pm, and then had an English class from 1pm to 3 pm with a dinner between them for 20 minutes. After finishing the second one, I felt really tired and my head hurts stiffly. Then I had a nap in graduate room.

The tutor reviewed the true belief argument in Locke's a letter concerning toleration. Today he reviewed another three arguments. The first one is what is called universalization argument or golden rule argument. It is similar to Confucian golden rule, which teaches: do not do things you dislike to others.Concerned with religious toleration, Locke uses it to argue that when a Christian magistrate wants to extend his authentic belief to other non-Christian subjects he should examine his inclination by the rule, that is to say, when he authentically holds his own religious conviction he should also recognize that non-Christian are also firm to their own beliefs.

The second argument is the fallibility argument which argues that magistrate are fallible therefore their decision are not firmly right. Hence magistrate should not promote one kind of religion that he thinks right by force. However, Prof. Ten thinks that he argument is not sufficient because when individual are left alone to shape their own religious view, they will be more possible to make wrong choice because they are also fallible and do not has the intelligent support like a magistrate gets from his bureau. But we may add some additional argument to refine it. This argument is similar to the argument for free market. No central control could operate a market more efficient than a free market where each individual customer acts according to their own biggest interest. The different between economy and religion here is that the economy does not care individual fallibility because the weak parts in market will be ruled out naturally in the process like the Darwinian evolution. But religion concerns individual salvation. But we can argue that each individual do their best to find the truth and the combined effort will produce a bigger possibility of being right.

The third argument is concerned with Locke's definition of Church society. Locke defines Church as a voluntary society which is constituted by voluntary members who get together to promote their salvation. Church is based on the limited common interests shared by its members and therefore they cannot extend its limited common interests to others outside the church.

At the last stage of the class, Prof. Ten examined the theory of toleration and asserts that we should go beyond toleration to show our respect to other religions and even endorse some common parts shared by both of us. He raised the example of Singapore. The government makes each community constituted with different races or ethnics and avoid to form communities by a singular race in order to weaken the strength of religious belief. This regulation is efficient to make different races to know each other and develop their mutual respect because this can develop the cross cultural interest between different cultures or religions. But we should also note that what one religion can endorse is very limited and can not endorse everything. But going beyond toleration is certainly necessary which is a more positive view.

Parallel argument

I find a parallel phenomenon in Kant's groundwork. The whole book consists a consistent argument for his moral theory, and each part of the book has a relatively separate argument for particular aim. Interestingly, there,I thing, is a parallel between these arguments. In his theory, Kant is very concerned with the distinction between intellectual and empirical moral knowledge. The former one is based on reason while the latter one is based on experience. In his mind, only volition derived from pure reason is unconditional and therefore has absolute moral worth, in contrast, choice based on empirical inclination is conditional and contingent, thereby has no moral worth from Kantian stand. The basic distinction could be seen in almost each fragment argument. Following the basic distinction, we can see more similar distinction like followings. There two kinds of motives in human's action: one is motivated by subjective inclinations, the other is motivated by pure respect for moral law. There are two kinds of moral principle: one is maxim which is subjective principle while the other is law which is objective principle. There are two kinds of imperative: one is hypothetical imperative which is conditional to the presupposed object of an action yet another is categorical imperative which is universal and unconditional. There are two kinds of ends: one is relative end which is always likely to become a means for a further end, while the other is end in itself which is absolute. I think these dual distinctions are parallel in form and function. Kant is establishing his ideal moral theory by attacking empirical moral theory.

Knowing the structure of his argument is useful for us to understand the whole argument of the book but the more important is to make clear the relationship among good will, reason, duty, moral law and freedom. The relation among them are really complicated. I believe the basic elements in the structure is reason. Once I understand his whole theory I understand the nature of reason. He is using the word to explain all important parts of the theory. Good will simply originates from pure practical reason. Duty seems to be more relevant to moral law, because Kant defines duty as the necessity of action from respect for moral law. However, the pure respect for law, from Kant's view, is from reason. Then why moral law deserves rational being's pure respect? The derivation of law is also from reason.  The moral law is the objective law for all rational beings, but it firstly is the subjective principle for a particular rational being who perceives it as a universal law when he decides conduct in accord with his maxim. Freedom seems to be more relevant to reason. According to my investigation, good will, duty, and moral law are the same thing containing the moral contents,although these contents are still on a high abstract level, that is, some formal principles. However, reason and freedom are more origin. They are a kind of capacity which make these contents possible. Accordingly, reason is more origin than freedom. Freedom seems more like a property of reason. Admittedly, good will to some extent is also an equivalent to reason because sometime good will is also a capacity. It's so complicated. I need more effort to make it clearer.

Four derivations from formula of universal law of nature

In Groundwork of the metaphysics of moral, KANT puts forth a general formulation of categorical imperative: act on that maxim through which at the same time you can always will that it will become a universal law. Only passes this test, a maxim will be permissible. Besides the general one, there are still three variants, as follows: formula of universal law of nature, formula of humanity as the end in itself, and the formula of autonomy. Today I will review the first variant. 

The first variant is similar to the general imperative but emphasize the role of nature. Kant offers four examples to illustrate the formula. The first derivation is concerned with suicide. When one wants to shorten her life to avoid troubles in life on the basis of self love, she will come into contradiction because the the maxim of self love given by nature is on sake of furthering life. Therefore, the maxim of self love in the case is self defeated. The second derivation is about false promise. When one acts on a maxim which admits that one can make false promise in order to get money when he is in need but knows that he will not pay back, the maxim will be contradictory when it is universalized because no promise is possible in such a world. The third derivation is the development of one's talent. One may claim that he will neglect his talent given by nature but at the same he also claims to enjoy his life while achieving enjoyment absolutely bases on the development of one's talent. The will will be in contradiction. The fourth derivation refer to beneficence. One may claim to be indifferent to others' suffering and refuse to offer help but when he is in such a situation, he will expect help from others. This is conflict in his will. 

There four derivations are very complicated and vague, so I need do more effort to clarify them with a critical eye.

A module about language theory

A module about language theory
The module of Daode Jing is in fact a module of language theory. In the following classes, we will review some important language theories in western philosophy and Hansen's own language theory will be introduced in the process.
I need note that this semester I will have to submit at least five papers and two presentation. So, I must start preparing them as early. I need also determine the topic of my proposal.
Sharpen your eyes upon your mother country.

Daoist interpretation of pre-Qin ancient Chinese philosophy

Daoist interpretation of pre-Qin ancient Chinese philosophy

Concerning ancient Chinese philosophy there is a prevailing perspective that Confucianism is the orthodox. This stand is not merely held by many schools even though there same difference amongst them, but also advocated by ancient and current political authority. For the defensive claim for Confucianism, other schools in ancient Chinese philosophy like Daoism, Mohism, legalism and so forth are excluded out of the mainstream of intellectual sphere. Even mentioned, they are just interpreted from the point of view of Confucianism. This scenario is absolutely unfair for those streams and also in great cost of intelligence. Chad Hansen realized the problem clearly and genuinely developed a new perspective of interpreting pre-Qin philosophy against the prevailing perspective.

His theory is based on a specific philosophy of language. In traditional view, western scholars generally accept the judgement that analytic aspect in ancient Chinese philosophy but conversely Hansen holds that there is a clear analytic structure in ancient Chinese language. And further, he adopts the pragmatic theory to interpret ancient Chinese philosophical texts. He admits that ancient Chinese philosophy does not have the dimension of pursuing truth of reality but only has moral dimension of debating the proper way of using language to guid behavior. Therefore, Hansen asserts the ancient chinese philosophy was carried about under a basic scheme of language philosophy. In fact the basic idea is from western theory of pragmatics. But I incline to admit it is reasonable to interpret ancient Chinese philosophy in term of pragmatics. According Hansen, philosophers in pre-Qin period are talking what is the proper way to use language to direct people's behavior. The point is the use of language.

Locke's argument for religious toleration

In class we talked about the two arguments for religious toleration in Locke's work. Generally the first one is the true belief argument, saying that true belief can not be brought about by coercion. The second one is the golden rule argument or the universalization argument, saying that one principle is not acceptable unless is could be universalized. Now we mainly talked about the first one, the main point is that the argument missed the point in argument for religious toleration because the coercion used in religious expand is not to promote the salvation of soul but for some reason else even though in many cases it was carried out in the name of true religion. More generally, Locke is attacked by his dissenter that even coercion may not work directly in changing people's belief but may do indirectly, or in distance. These discussion limited the topic in whether the coercion or what kind of coercion is effective or acceptable in religion expand. I indeed agree with that Locke missed the point in this argument but my point is that even the coercion is effective in changing people's belief it will still be wrong. That is to say, the point against religious coercion is not the irrationality of coercion but the immorality of coercion. Could the magistrate or church use the force if the force is effective? I think the coercion is really effective at least indirectly and in distance but this does not prove that the coercion used to change people's belief is morally reasonable. So, the discussion is also missing the point. It is said generally the universalization argument appears in the following letters after the first one. This means a more persuasive argument is coming later than the first letter, however, I want to emphasize that a persuasive argument based on another point is already there in the first letter.

Here I will briefly sketch out the main project of his first letter in term of the another argument and also point out that even the true belief is not the point for religious toleration but it in fact is helpful and indispensable in the project, at least in the social context Locke was living. The point of religious toleration is to oppose coercion acted by church or magistrate in religious expand. To support the stand, Locke, I think, has three basic premises. First one is his understanding of what is true belief, second is his interpretation of the nature of church, the third is his understanding about distinction between religion and civil issue, the former is concerned with church while the latter is about the duty of magistrate. However, all of these three points are based on one same core, that is , the liberty of conscience. For it, true belief is only based on one's own choosing, but can not be brought about by external coercion.For it, the nature of society is an association constituted by volunteers who aims to promote their religious belief and therefore is only concerned with the salvation of soul without referring to any civil issue. For it, the magistrate can not insert a finger in religious issue and the power of it can not be lent to church. If this is right, Locke has no need to refer to the true belief argument but I think this argument actually is used to attack a wrong common sense, that is, the coercion will bring unbelievers into true religion. So, I thing even this argument holds a long part in the letter but it is just composed for instrumental goal. The real argument behind it is the project shown above. I will consider it further and try to give a more complete interpretation.

Main interests

Main interests
Political philosophy, liberalism, distributive justice, ethics, autonomy

I completed my master programme in Jilin university, China, with a thesis on distributive justice. I am mainly interested in the keen discussions in political philosophy evoked by Rawls's contribution.

Get ready for hard work

Get ready for hard work
I added another module on the list for this semester because I need to take three six thousand level modules in total, but there will Bo no enough module for choosing next semester, so I have to do it this term. The module I added is prof. Hansen's philosophical Chinese which is about interpretation of dao de jing in term of linguistic theory. Hansen has his own perspective about the interpretation of ancient Chinese philosophy which asserts that the proper way of interpreting ancient philosophy is which character is the originally correct one but which character we should choose for a proper interpretation of these text. In fact, he is a skeptic upon whether there is the authoritative interpretation because it is impossible for our modern people to represent the original meaning of these original text. I think this module will help me know more comparative philosophy and talk about Chinese philosophy in English. My supervisor supports my decision.

However, I have to make myself well prepared for the big challenge before me: five lessons each week and hands of relevant assignments. Fighting.

Fwd: Topics for next talk

>
> One of the topics was the 8 derivations of (4) duties (from the Formula of Universal Law and from the Formula of Humanity). Remember, you need to know the derivations and you need to judge whether or not they're successful.
>
> I'm quite sure that I also wanted you to think about whether actions from duty must be actions in accord with duty.
>
> I'm a little fuzzy on the rest, but I think I wanted you to try to think about the relationship between the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity, and also to think a little more about actions from duty and moral worth.
>
>
>

the first day of semester II,2010-2011

It is the first day of semester II,2010-2011. The class I took today is instructed by prof. Ten. There are seven students taking it. The module is about liberty. Tutor will introduce the most influential perspectives concerning this topic along the line from John Locke, to Stuart Mill, to John Rawls. These three philosophers are the most influential liberalists in western history. The works we will refer to are Locke's a letter concerning religious toleration, Mill's on liberty, and Rawls's political liberalism. However, the readings will not limited to these three books. Professor gave us a reading list and will give us some other relevant articles along the module. So, I will have a lot work to do in following days. I am really a little worried about whether I am able to carry out all my plan successfully. But I will not give us. Time and efficiency will be crucially important for my following study.
Keep on reading, thinking,and writing with perseverance.

Today, professor mainly gave us a rough background for these three theorists in the first section and a short instruction of religious toleration. It was mainly about two kinds of common argument about religious toleration that are not persuasive from professor's view.

Work before me in this semester

Work before me in this semester
A seminar
Read books of Locke, Mill and Rawls for political philosophy;
Read ethical books for QE and talks with Chris;
Read books about just power for a conference;
Read the law of people for international relationship between pasific rim countries.
Write blogs everyday with perseverance.

Locke on religious toleration

Locke on religious toleration
In the first ten pages of the letter, Locke talked about his thought of the 1nature of religious faith, the relation of church to salvation of soul, the separation of government from religious, and the structure of church. The core of these questions is the liberty of conscience.

At the beginning, Locke criticized the fact in history that some church of Christ impelled pagans to believe Christ by force. He thinks that compelling way is not valid because the real faith is based on the conviction of mind which is derived from freedom of conscience. Moreover, he believe the coercion from church is not the thing a real church should do, that is, coercion in faith is inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity.

Further, he thinks the coercive force merely belongs to the government whose mission is mainly limited to promote the civil interests and public order, such as citizen's life,freedom of speech,and their belongings. Since the power of government is limited to the public area, the government cannot involve the salvation of soul. Therefore, the division of roles are separate between church and government, one works on the sake of the salvation of soul, the other works on the sake of public interests.

Then, what is the proper way that a church should go? Locke offers his understanding of the structure of a real church and the respective function of section. The way Locke explains the derivation of church is similar to the origination of government although they have absolutely different mission and functions. According to Locke, a church is a result of consent of some relevant people, therefore, he thinks the church is a voluntary society constituted by voluntary members to promote the salvation of soul together. Since the enter onto a church is based on one's consent, the withdrawal is also made by one's own choice. No any coercion should be involved in the promotion of faith.

The next question he will talk is about to what the religious should be?

The second talk with Chris

I had the second talk with Chris concerning Kant's Groundwork. When I got into his office, he was getting a post containing a new book. He is very happy to see his article appearing in the book. It is a paper collection on Dating. Congratulation.

Then we started talking about Kant. He asked me which way I like, he asks me question or I ask him question. I chose the first way. He followed questions set last time. The first question is about the difference between good will and character traits. The point is that character traits like courage,wit,perseverance,happiness,etc, are not conditionally good, they may be evil if there is no good will. In contrast, good will is absolutely and unconditionally good and the condition for goodness of other character traits. He referred to a question about the relation between good will and duty. I cited the text to indicate that the concept of duty contains the concept of good will, but he pointed out a part I neglected. When Kant says that he adds a limitation of subjection: under some subjective limitation and hindrance. Chris led me to know that the condition means that the concept of duty do not only contain that of good will but also that of desire. But in most of cases, according to Kantian moral psychology, the good will always wins. If there is no desire, we will not need duty. He also made a distinction about different accounts of duty. A duty or duties is different duty without a or the, and action from duty. A duty or duties means moral requirements, but duty without a or the is just a psychological phenomenon in Kantian sense.

After that, we turned to the second topic about the difference between action from duty and action in accord with duty. Action from duty is motived by respect for moral law while the action in accord with duty is motived by desires. Generally, we think that action in accord with duty may be not action from duty but action from duty will necessarily be action in accord with duty. Chris has doubt about this proposition. I thing this judgement is logic unless the word duty in the two phrase have different meanings.

Then, we talked about the third topic of freedom. He required me to put forth my understanding of Kant. The negative freedom mainly means the absence of obstacle, that is, action from will is not determined by alien causes, which here mainly refers to desires, like inclination, preference. In Kantian sense, desire is external to reason although we generally believe desire is also an internal aspect of person. What is positive freedom? I did not answer this question well. I just put it like this: positive freedom means one acts according to his own will which is a law to itself. How to improve that people have freedom? I referred to the text: reason must regard itself as free, otherwise, the will will not be the will of itself. Chris gave me another rough argument. Kant tried to prove the reality of freedom by indicating the existence of morality while the morality always goes with freedom. No freedom no morality.

Finally I asked a question about the relation between good will and reason. I asked whether good will and reason is the same thing. He thought they are roughly the same thing. In Kantian project, the reason is moralized, and therefore, the pure practical reason always goes together with the stable respect for moral law. This account is very close to the implication of good will.

Then, I raised the topic for next week. 1. The relation between formula of universal law of nature and the formula of humanity. Kant thinks they are same, but Chris does not think so. 2. Four arguments for the derivation of duty from universal law.

He also explained the difference between duty and maxim, which a question I have. I ever think duty is same with maxim, but in fact they are absolutely not. Chris explains that maxims are things that need test through the universal law. Once it succeeds, it is permissible, but not a duty; once it failed, then there is a duty.I am confused on this question. Did I misunderstood him? I will check it.

I regret for that I did not record the talk successfully. What a pity.

Negative and positive freedom

In Groundwork, there is a distinction between negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative concept of freedom is articulated by contrast with natural necessity. According to Kant's account, freedom is the property of will. Will is a kind of causality which is different from the physical causality determined by external causes. Causality of will is derived from free will itself independently from alien causes.

There is a positive concept of freedom which is based on the concept of autonomy. In western tradition, autonomy generally means self-government, that is, one acts according to his will and choice without intervene. However, according to Kant, autonomy also means law-author. Rational being as autonomous agent gives the moral law to itself and complies the law.

The new semester will start from next Monday and I will read more material.Read faster!!!

Action from duty and action in accordance with duty

On first sight, it is easy to think that both of them mean the same thing. However, according to Kant, there is big differences between them. The most apparent case is the one which is generally considered as good action but is carried by the person who is compelled to do that. In such case, the action of the man seems to be in conformity with duty but actually merely has no any moral worth because the action is not what he honestly wants to do. When he is doing such a good action, some evil may be in his mind. So, we can not judge that he is a good person simply according to what he is doing but evaluate his behavior from the maxim that he is acting on, that is, the principle of volition. This is just a obvious case, but there are still many case that are difficult to distinguish one from one another, such as in case which is good but merely just serves one's self-seeking purpose.
To articulate the difference between them, Kant raises four typical examples in the book. First one is about the principle of honesty in commerce. When a merchant charge all his customers the same price just for avoiding low profits or higher benefits, he is doing that in accordance with duty but not from duty. The second one is about the precept of preservation of life. Only when one takes care of his life not for fear of death but for his responsibility to exist, his action is from duty rather than from inclination. The third one is the precept of beneficence. Beneficence for joy or honor and the like, can not be respected as action from duty. The fourth one is about the precept of happiness. People have strong instinct to pursue their happiness, but according to Kant, it is not from duty if one promotes his happiness just for satisfaction with his inclinations.

Then, what is the core point of action from duty? An action from duty has its moral worth not because of the purpose obtained by it but because of the maxim according to which it is determined. Kant's understanding of morality is opposite to Hume's consequentialism. His account of morality is deontology. What is duty? Duty is the necessity of action from respect for law which is connected with will as ground of practice. I will review the connection between law and will.

Today I attended a presentation given by Haddock about accounts of self knowledge.
 self-seeking purpose.

Reason and good will

Reason and good will
When I was working the issue of good will, I found a good interesting thing which is about the relationship between reason and good will in Kant's work. In groundwork of metaphysics of morals, Kant refers to reason when he talk about the purpose of nature. According to his observation, if there is such called end of nature for human being as preservation of life, welfare if man, and in short, happiness of man, the natural instinct will be more efficient to carry out these purpose than reason. However, since the reason is given to us as practical faculty, the vocation of reason is to establish the good will which is absolutely good in itself and apart from any other purpose. To achieve this, reason only can fulfill the kind of itself, that the end is determined by reason itself. This is where the will come from.

Good will

According to Kant's understanding of good will, it is the mere thing that has unconditional worth. Neither gifts of nature like understanding,wit,courage,resolution nor gifts of fortune like riches, honor, health, even happiness, are not guaranteed to be morally good unless a good will is presupposed, because they could be either good or bad according to different motives. For example, wit is usually considered as a good trait for man because it could help people make smart decisions when they face problem but it could be also used to serve immoral action and carry it out successfully. From the point of view, the good will is the condition of moral worth of these traits and qualities. A good will is good not because of what it accomplished or success of obtaining the presupposed ends, but because of the goodness in itself. 

All other traits or qualities are efficient only when they are used to serve some ends that are out of themselves and therefore, the goodness is conditional to the ends they are serving. According to Kant, such kind of action has no intrinsic moral worth and only action from good will has absolutely and unconditionally worth. Good will does not depend on any external end. The value of it derives from itself. 

Kant refuses the interpretation of morality that attribute it to some preserved purposes like self-interest, happiness, self-preservation and so on. For example, a merchant charges the same price for one kind of good to all customers. If he does this only because that will bring more profit for him, then his action has, according to Kant, no moral worth. The end he is really pursuing is out of morality. In another word, the worth of his action is conditional to the end he pursues even though his action seems to be in conformity with duty. 

The point I should remember is that the good will has worth in itself and therefore, is absolutely good. It is the origin of worth itself. Once understand the special feature of good will, it will be easier to understand the distinction between action from duty and action in accord with duty.

Each sentence in the book deserves serious attention. 

Questions given by Chris

For this week, remember to review the following:

 

1.       What is the good will? What's so special about it (compared to other character traits)?

2.       What's the difference between acting from duty and acting in accord with duty?

3.       What are the different kinds/aspects of freedom (positive and negative)?