Critique on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
            
             In Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals he shows a clear understanding of goodwill and all its components. He offers lengthy elaboration of his theories along with numerous relevant examples. Yet while his arguments are well structured and supported they still suffer from certain logical inconsistencies in regard to the honest nature of mankind.
             Kant starts by first stating that nothing in the world is truly good, with the exception of goodwill. He believes that all other things are good only because they stem from goodwill itself. Things such as honor, kindness, and charity all possess potential for goodness, but only if the person executing these characteristics possesses the goodwill itself. If they do not then the actions are tainted and no longer pure examples of anything good. He also states that ones worthiness for the attainment of ultimate happiness solely rests upon whether or not a person possesses goodwill. Kant claims, "Some qualities are even helpful to this goodwill itself and can make its task very much easier." He acknowledges that the obtainment of goodwill is not a simple task, and retaining it is not much easier, he concedes that it would require every fiber of ones being to not default on the guidelines that he has setup for goodwill. Kant believes that goodwill is a constant. That regardless of the outcome of any situation, whether goodwill resulted in something more constructive or destructive, it's value remains unchanged. It is above any
             Hilden 2
             qualification, and exists above all earthy things, as not a result, but as the ultimate influence on ones actions.
             Kant now goes on to discuss duty, and its close relation to goodwill. He claims that doing something in accordance with duty does have its moral worth, but that only if the action is done simply for the sake of duty and not for the anticipated ...