On the Intention of Good Will and Categorial Imperatives

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of ethics is based on the idea that people should determine their actions based off the idea of “good will” which he describes as an action derived from free will and good logical consideration.  The categorial imperative he describes is a prescriptive philosophy which attempts to guide people in what they “should do” in any given circumstance.  Kant explains two forms of imperatives the first being hypothetical.  Hypothetical imperatives are not good actions in themselves rather they are a means to a end i.e. you go to college to get a degree which will allow you to get a high paying job, the job being the “end” and you attending school being the “means” to that end.  The other is categorial imperatives which is a commanded as being good without qualification i.e. you go to college not as a means of getting a better job but purely for the sake of bettering yourself by learning.  He explains that how the two differ morally, “A good will is a good not because if what it perform or effects, notably its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply for the virtue of the volition, that is, it is good in itself.” by this he is explaining that categorial imperatives are more moral because they are done purely because they are the right thing to do and not because one will acquire something (physical or emotional) from their action.  This is why Kant believes that motivation by sympathy is less moral due to the fact that one isn’t acting because they know its right but rather because they will feel better about the situation.  He describes that decisions drive from inclination or ones feelings are less moral because you’re doing it for your own feelings not because it is right.  He offers the defense of this in the idea that not everyone feels sympathy for the same reasons, one day one might feel inclined to give money to the homeless but another time they may not feel that same inclination. His philosophy made me think deeply about the certain things I’ve done personally that I felt were good deeds but I now see are not necessarily moral ones. For example I’ve donated a lot of blood in my life and I’ve always done it because I’ve felt that it is an easy way of doing something good for others and it makes me feel like a good person for doing it. Where Kant would argue that that reason for doing good is not moral, it would be moral if I did it purely because it is the right thing to do.  Some might argue that the intent shouldn’t matter as long as you’re doing something good but I believe that the difference lays in the fact that when we act out of our inclinations the action because flimsy, one day I might feel like giving blood where as another I don’t but if I was giving blood purely because its right then it would be a concrete action that I regularly do whether or not I feel up to it at any giving time. I believe making that distinction is important because all we have control over is our intentions and actions but not the consequences of them so one must find goodness is both intentions and actions not just actions.  Despite this however I still believe that people should still do good out of inclination even if it isn’t necessarily considered as moral in Kant’s eyes.