Thus the moral worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it, and so too does not depend on any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result. For all these results (agreeable states and even the promotion of happiness in others) could have been brought about by other causes as well, and consequently their production did not require the will of a rational being, in which, however, the highest and unconditioned good can alone be found. Therefore nothing but the idea of the law in itself, which admittedly is present only in a rational being —so far as it, and not an expected result, is the ground determining the will—can constitute that pre-eminent good which we call moral, a good which is already present in the person acting on this idea and has not to be awaited merely from the result. (Kant, Groundwork, 401 15–16)

Went to tutor to beg for a reading list while he was drinking with friends round a table in the quad, to which he replied “okay, read Kant” to raucous laughter. I don’t think we were even going to do Kant this week.

I am enjoying the Groundwork and am finding that most of Kant’s sentiments line up very closely with the intuitive morality I use in every day life. Most people find Kant unintuitive, and my tutor is a committed Humean, so I’m going to have a hard time defending this stuff. I have Susan Wolff’s Saints and Heroes lined up to read which attempts to illustrate a perfect Kantian, a perfect utilitarian etc. and show them to be rather unethical characters, so it’ll be good to see the other side.