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.