Life is nothing if your will is not free

the font can be bigger

Kant supposes that the will is free. It is actually free when it acts in compliance with the moral law, but potentially it is always free, even then yield to natural sensory inclinations. A man is not nature’s slave; a man cannot be coerced by anything and anybody. If a man acts obeying to this or that his inclination, this means that his will itself authorized these actions, that it determined itself. If a man executed immoral demands of his sovereign, it means that his will allowed him to act so. From Kant’s point of view a man is stronger than his own nature, any pleasures and any suffering independently from their intensity cannot mechanically, with the absolute necessity make him perform something against his will. And if Kant is right here, then every person in any circumstances is able to save own dignity and not lose self-esteem. Everything depends on a person, on his will. Human will is absolutely independent and is not conditioned by anything. Human’s will is based at nothing, vice versa – all human actions are based at will. And Kant states that will’s autonomy is the single principle of all moral laws and corresponding duties.

In other words, if a man doesn’t want to do something, he has a right for this and it is not bad. If a man doesn’t want to help people, he has a right not to do this.

As for the starving people, Narveson states, if people have a wish to feed starving people, they can do this, but if people don’t have such a wish, they are not obligated to do this. Everything must be done according to the good will. If people want to be virtuous or charitable, or both, this is great but there is no way of obligating somebody.

One more Narveson’s point is that is we didn’t cause harm to somebody, then we are not responsible for his/her suffering and terrible situation. But we completely clearly understand that if we have extra “something”, we’d share this with people in need, of course, we’ll do this without any obligations. I’m sure that every person, deeply in soul is eager to be virtuous and charitable (but there are some people who help others and wait for paying back, and there are some people who are making good for other people and don’t want anything back, because they are really kind-hearted and it is great happiness for them to see people happy when they can help them).

And I completely agree with Narveson (and Kant as well) that everything must be done in a voluntary way, without coercion.

Leave a Reply

Protected by Copyscape Original Content Checker