Kant's Good Will

What if I were to tell you that happiness had no value? What if I were to tell you that happiness was only achieved as a result of wrongdoing? Kant states that happiness is merely one of numerous values that can be abused and misused. As a result, happiness is not consistent and therefore it is not always valuable. However, there is a value believed to be absolute and consistent. According to Kant this is the good will.

As defined by Kant, the good will “is the ability to reliably know what your duty is, and [the] steady commitment to doing [one's] duty for its own sake” (Shafer 178). In other words, the good will is doing what we know is right and expected of us without any sort of hesitation or question, regardless of the possible outcomes. The objective of the good will is not the outcome, it is the will and the intention under which the action is performed—this is what makes the action praiseworthy and moral. The intention in turn affects the moral worth of the action, this is what influences the overall praise that the action will receive. For example, a man volunteering in order to fulfill service hour requirements and for the praise is less praiseworthy and viewed as has having slightly less moral worth than the individual that volunteers in order to create more good and for the overall health and well being of the community. But, if the good will is our duty where is it that we draw the line in regards to acting on our duties that possibly infringe on the rights of others? Where does the respect and the dignity that Kant speaks of come into effect?

In the case of the “Cassandra C,” as she appears in legal documentations, the 17 year old who was mandated to undergo chemotherapy against her desires can be seen as an example of what Kant's considered the idea of the good will. Receiving statistics from her medical providers Cassandra and her mother opted to refuse chemotherapy and go about their lives. They continually missed appointments that put the terminally ill teenager at risk. In relation to the good will, the hospital was doing what they believe to be their duty and they were acting upon it. As a result, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families became involved in what appeared to be a case of medical neglect. With good will and good intentions the department was simply trying to protect Cassandra and take care of immediate and desperate medical needs.

However, Cassandra did not wish to continue to receive treatment and she preferred to discontinue it and go about her time, conscious of the consequences. Under good will where is it that we see its boundaries? Although it was in the department and the hospital's moral duty to care for the patient and see that she receive the necessary treatment in order to heal and recover, it was not what the patient deemed necessary and it was not what she wanted. Do these “wants” outweigh the necessities and the possibility of improving health? When is it acceptable to forfeit your rights in the practice of the good will in order to please and satisfy the patient and their desires? Does allowing a patient to suffer not violate the Hippocratic oath? The same general idea applies to the concept of physician assisted suicide, although the concept of such medical practices does in fact lie on a very slippery slope, when does the good will that is expected by us exceed the desires and the legal rights of the patient? When is it right to intervene, and when is it not?

Cassandra was forced to continue to receive chemotherapy despite legal attempts to halt treatment.

Is it moral to utilize the good will to do a duty that would generally be optimific if it no longer respects the human and their intrinsic dignity and rights?

Shafer-Landau, Russ.The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

"Connecticut Teen in Remission as Forced Chemo Nears End - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.

Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.