Sample Explication Paper on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Section I, 4:394

Instructions: Explicate Kant's argument in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Sections I, 4:394.

       In this paper, I will explicate Kant’s arguments in Section 1: Transition from Common Rational Moral Cognition to Philosophical Moral Cognition of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.  Kant attempts to show that the good will is the only thing that is good without limitation.  In the first two paragraphs, Kant lists characteristics which are not good without limitation, implying that the good will is the only thing good without limitation.  In the third paragraph, Kant explains further what good without limitations means and what makes the good will good without limitation.  In addition to this main conclusion, Kant also claims that the good will is necessary to make all good things good.  I will show that Kant’s arguments are both valid, with the addition of the implicit premises explained in the paper.
       In the first sentence of this passage, Kant concludes that the good will is the only thing that is good without limitation.  Kant goes on to argue for this claim by showing examples of qualities, such as talents of the mind, that are not good without limitation.  Kant also means to suggest that all good things, except the good will itself, are not good without limitation, thereby proving the conclusion that the only thing good without limitation is the good will. 
       After stating the conclusion, Kant explicitly states the first three premises:
 
(1)  Talents of the mind can be extremely evil and harmful if they stem from a will that is not good.
(2)  Qualities of temperament can be extremely evil and harmful if they stem from a will that is not good.
(3)  Gifts of fortune can be extremely evil and harmful if they stem from a will that is not good.
 
       Here, in the first three premises, Kant is appealing to our intuitions.  Kant takes these things to be part of our “common rational moral cognition,” and will move from these intuitions towards the philosophical explanation.  Kant is trying to eliminate all of these characteristics as candidates for the category “good without limitation.”  If he can validly show that no good thing, except the good will, is good without limitation, then he will have proven the conclusion that the only good thing that is good without limitation is the good will.  To eliminate these characteristics as possible qualities that are good without limitation, we must supply:
 
(6)   Talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune require the presence of something else to be good.
(7)   Things that require the presence of something else to be good are not good without limitation.
 
       The above two premises are intuitive and reasonable.  In reading the first paragraph, we find that (6) is obvious—Kant explicitly says that these qualities may be great and wished-for, but only if the will behind them is good.  From this, we can take that these qualities need something else to make them good.  Also, Kant states the conclusion right away, and so we know that he is trying to show that the good will is the only thing good without limitation.  So, by listing these goods, he is trying to show that they are good with limitation.  From these two premises, we can conclude:
 
(8)   Therefore, talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune are not good without limitation. (from 6, 7)
 
This is the first step in Kant’s strategy.  In the first paragraph, he aims to show that talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune are, while good when they stem from a good will, only good in a limited way.  Once he shows us that these good things are limited goods, he moves on to a new set of qualities in the second paragraph.
       In the second paragraph, Kant explains that “Some qualities are even conducive to this good will itself and can make its work much easier, but still have despite this no inner unconditional worth.”  We see that Kant is employing the same strategy he used in the previous paragraph: he will try to list characteristics that are sometimes thought of as good without limitation, and then go on to show that these characteristics are, in fact, not good without limitation. 
       Kant lists “moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and sober reflection” as three characteristics which are good for many aims, seem to constitute even the inner worth of a person and were, apparently, praised by the ancients.  But then he states that even these qualities are not good without limitation.  As before, to make validly the argument that these characteristics are not good without limitation, we must supply:
 
(12)   For moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and sober reflection to be evil and harmful, it is sufficient that the will behind them is not good. (P)
(13)   Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and sober reflection are not good without the presence of something else to make them good. (from 12)
 
And, again, we can conclude from these two implicit premises:
 
(14)   Therefore, moderation in affects and passion, self-control, and sober reflection are not good without limitation. (from 13, 7)
 
Now that Kant has given us examples of things that are not good without limitation, he must show us explicitly, first, that the good will is good without limitation, and second, that the good will is the only thing that is good without limitation. 
       In the third paragraph, Kant argues that the good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, but that it is good in itself.  In arguing that the good will is not good because of usefulness, Kant hopes to show more clearly what “good without limitation” entails.  Kant is pushing the point that the good will does not depend on anything else for its goodness.  In order to move from the premise that the good will is either good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its willing to the conclusion that the good will is good without limitation, we must first show that the good will is good in itself.  To show that the good will is good in itself, we assume the following chain of argumentation:
 
(19)   It is not the case that the good will is good because of its effects.
(20)   The good will is good because of its willing. (from 18, 19)
 
From (20), we can conclude the following:
 
(21)   A good will is good in itself. (from 20)
 
Now that we have established that a good will is good in itself, we can use this to prove that a good will is good without limitation.  All we need to do is add the following implicit premise:
 
(22)   The good will does not need the presence of anything else to be good. (from 21)
 
From this premise, and the conclusion prior to premise (25) which states what the good will is good in itself, we can conclude:
 
(23)   Therefore, a good will is good without limitation. (from 21, 7)
 
       Kant now needs to show that the good will is the only thing good without limitation.  Nowhere does Kant explicitly state that the good will is the only thing good without limitation, and so, to make valid this conclusion, we must draw on multiple premises that show all other things besides the good will are limited goods.  Premises (8) and (14) exclude all the attributes that Kant mentions from the category of “good without limitation.”  Drawing on this, we can supply the following implicit premise that will show deductively that the good will is the only thing good without limitation:
 
(16)  Talents of mind, qualities of temperament, gifts of fortune, moderation in affects and passions, self-control, sober reflection, and the good will are the only good things. (P)
 
From (16), (8), and (14), we can exclude every quality in (16) from the category of “good without limitation,” except for the good will, showing that the good will must be the only thing good without limitation.
       We have now made a valid argument in favor of Kant’s conclusion that a good will is the only thing that is good without limitation.  However, while Kant’s main conclusion has been validly shown, there is another claim that Kant makes in this passage which remains to be discussed.
       In addition to concluding that the good will is the only thing that is good without limitation, Kant also concludes that a good will is necessary to make all good things good.  This is an argument that has no bearing on the proof of Kant’s main conclusion, but that is significant in and of itself.  In the first paragraph, we are given the first glimpse of Kant’s argument that a good will is necessary to make all good things good.  Kant states, near the end of the first paragraph, that “…[these qualities] make for courage and thereby often arrogance, where there is not a good will to correct their influence on the mind, and thereby on the entire principle of action….”  In making this assertion, Kant implies that the good will is responsible for making these qualities good. 
       If we draw on premises (1), (2), and (3), we can validly conclude:
 
(4)  For talents of mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune to be evil and harmful, it is sufficient that the will behind them is not good. (from 1, 2, 3)
 
And from (4), we can logically conclude:
 
(5)   Therefore, the good will is necessary to make talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune good. (from 1, 2, 3)
 
       Now that we have shown (5), we must show that the other qualities Kant mentions in the second paragraph also require the good will to be good.  We first show that these other qualities are not good without limitation.  Then, we supply the premise:
 
(15)   A good will is necessary to make moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and sober reflection good.
 
       Now that we have listed all of the common categories of characteristics which people normally consider good, we need to get to the conclusion that the good will is necessary to make all good things good.  To come to this conclusion, we need only to supply the following premise:
 
(16)   Talents of mind, qualities of temperament, gifts of fortune, moderation in affects and passions, self-control, sober reflection, and good will are the only good things. (P)
 
If the above characteristics are the only good things, and all of them require the good will to make them good, we can validly conclude:
 
(17)   Therefore, a good will is necessary to make all good things good. (from 5, 15, 16)
 
So, we have shown that Kant has made the argument that the good will is necessary to make all good things good, in addition to his argument that the good will is only thing that is good without limitation.
       I have explicated Kant’s argument regarding good will presented in Section 1 of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.  I have shown that Kant argues validly for the conclusions that the good will is the only thing that is good without limitation and that the good will is necessary to make all other good things good, with the addition of the previously mentioned supplied premises.

Reconstruction from Kant's Groundwork, Section One

Objections to Kant's Argument in Groundwork, Section One