Free Causality: By Vinoy Thomas Payikattu

In his Critique of Pure Reason , Kant tried to demonstrate that the
principle of causality as, "…everything that happens, that is, begins
to be, presupposes something upon which it follows by rule…".
Principle of causality presupposes something follows some another
thing. There is first of all one event that causes a second event and
the second event is the consequence of the first. There is a causal
connection between something with another thing. There are only two
kinds of causality conceivable to human mind; of nature and of
freedom. The former is the connection in the sensible world of one
state with a preceding state on which it follows according to a rule.
In closer analysis, we would conclude that the natural causality
itself needs something else for it to cause a thing in to being. Free
causality on the other hand is a state of spontaneity and is
transcendental of all nature and inclinations, and has no other cause
determining it in time according to the law of nature. The principle
of causality is a a priori synthetic principle in so far as the
objective events are not presented to the mind as causally connected
but they are constituted in and by the mind itself. The causal
connection is not present in the events out there rather they
originate in reason itself. The events do not cause the reason to
develop the causal connection but the reason assigns the causal
connections to the events. We exercise free causality as rational
beings. The natural mechanistic causal relations in the nature are the
effects of the free causality of the reason as the reason constitutes
the causal connection. The universal law of causality can only be
applied to the nature and experience because nothing else can be
conceived in experience as an absolute causality. Therefore reason
creates for itself the idea of spontaneity which can begin to act of
itself, without requiring to be determined to action by an antecedent
cause in accordance with the law of causality. Law of causality is
only applied to the events out there in the world. In the case of
reason that recognizes and constitutes the causal connection is not
caused by anything else other than itself.

Free Will: By Vinoy Thomas Payikattu

Free Will is a topic that Immanuel Kant deals with in his book
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The idea of 'free will' is
incomprehensible in ordinary sense. This is because there cannot be an
operation of the will without any cause. This causal structure is
necessary for the will to operate. According to Kant, if there is any
extrinsic law or desire, or motivation that causes will to act, then
that will cannot be free. In order that the will to be free it should
have its own causal laws or intrinsic laws. The will is a law unto
itself.
In the preliminary understanding of 'free will', freedom is the
property of the 'will'. This is understood against the postulate,
'rational nature exists as an end in itself'. Will is the cause of
action in a rational being free of any external cause. A non-rational
being can only act in accordance with some external causes. Therefore,
a rational being is only rational when it is able to will an action
according to the reason and intrinsic cause (law) produced by the
reason. This willing is free and only a rational being can will.
Therefore, we can say that only a rational being has freedom. Freedom
is transcendental in so far as it is uncaused by any external cause or
it transcends all the external causes. Here will is able to act in a
way it wants to act. Will is transcendently free. This will operates
in a practical field both negatively and positively. It operates
negatively when it is free from all the external causes (desires and
inclinations) and it operates positively when it determines and obeys
its own laws. The negative freedom corresponds to heteronomous will
and the latter corresponds to autonomous (free) will. The concept
'free will' is based on the notion of moral law. Moral law determines
free will. This is produced by reason therefore; it is intrinsic to
the will.

Evil: By Vinoy Thomas Payikattu

According to Immanuel Kant, the source of evil lies in a rule made by
the will. It does not appear before the origination of the moral law.
Human being is finite and rational at the same time and therefore the
will has to strive for the unattainable good. When human will is
pathologically affected by the conflict of maxims with the practical
laws, the human will lacks the propensity to do good. There are many
reasons to conceive the notion of evil. Kant gives an explanation to
willful immorality. It is inconceivable to Kant that anyone who is in
possession of moral laws can transgress them. If a person adopts the
moral law into his or her supreme maxim then the person is morally
good. But when he or she adopts some incentives such as self love,
sensual impulses and inclinations into his or her supreme maxim then
the person is morally evil.
Kant introduces the idea of moral fantasies and their alleged
association to moral laws. First of all they can influence the
deliberation of moral law through constant entertaining of them.
Secondly they can weaken the demands of the moral law to less
obligatory. Though humans have natural propensity to do right they
have also propensity to do what is morally evil. The decision to do
right originates within the reason of the person. They are known as
moral maxims. They function over and against desires and impulses.
When one gives more importance and inclines to the desires and
inclinations then there is engaged in what is morally wrong. This
choice of what is morally evil happen not because we are forced from
outside to do so. There is no external cause but we consciously choose
to be morally evil. We do good when we respond to what our duty
prescribes and we do evil when we retain our desires and impulses.
The origin of evil is not related to religion nor is it a problem
associated with knowledge of God or philosophy. It is originated
within the freedom employed by reason. Inclinations and impulses do
not cause will to choose evil. The ground of evil then is the
disposition that is a maxim itself. Even for a will to choose good
the disposition that is innate and acquired, is needed. When the will
adopts self- love in to the disposition the will is corrupted
(pathologically affected) and the disposition promotes propensity to
evil. This natural propensity is ineradicable yet human person can
strive to be moral because despite a corrupted heart yet he or she
possesses good will.

Good Will: By Vinoy Thomas Payikattu

Good will is the fundamental principle that generates moral actions.
Kant categorically argues that the highest form of 'good' is the
'goodwill'. This 'good will' cannot be further qualified. When one
says he has a 'good heart', here heart is qualified as good. In the
case of 'good will', this qualification does not exist. The will is
good in itself therefore it is always a 'good will'. The qualification
does not exist in the case of 'good will' as the will is good in
itself. Some of the qualities like courage, disposition, health,
tranquility etc… are good but they are different from 'good will'. The
difference is that the former are gifts given to the human person and
the latter is self-developed by the same human person. The gifts are
always externally given so that they can be either good or bad in a
given circumstance. The 'good will' is not given but self made so that
under any circumstance it is good. The 'good will' is able to choose
good because it is assisted by reason as it realizes what is
practically necessary to be good. The 'good will' is in a way
'determined' in the sense that it cannot be other way. It is able to
make all its decisions with the application of reason that recognizes
the inherent moral law. In ordinary experiences, people tend to relate
'goodwill' in relation with some ends or purposes. The ends or
purposes exist outside of the human person nevertheless are beneficial
to him or her and even to others. In this respect, the goodness that
we possess is relative and the value of the goodness is conditional.
This is not 'good will' in its true nature. A 'good will' is good in
all its circumstances and good even when there is no 'circumstance'
(situation). The 'reason' either can operate in a theoretical realm or
in a practical realm (practical reason) but 'good will' operates
always in a practical realm. It is the intrinsic function of the 'good
will' to operate in practical realm. In this sense, we can say it is
its duty. The unconditional operation of the good will makes a person
truly human. The only duty of the human is to realize his/her
humanity. Therefore, operation of the 'good will' is the duty of a
human person. Good will generates moral actions and it is the duty of
the good will to generate moral actions as it realizes humanity. To be
moral is to be human and vice versa. Good will is the meeting point of
humanity and morality; each one perfects the other because of good
will.

--
Fr. Vinoy Augustine O.P.
Satya Nilaya
Banglore
Cell: 07795520734