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.