Inclination and Duty
Kant: Inclination and Duty
Kant’s plea
To cultivate in children the sense of duty alongside the natural sense of inclination.
The basic relationship
- Doing by inclination is often better than doing by duty.
- But in some situations, the sense of duty is essential.
The concept of duty in children
- A child may not always see the reason for a duty.
- Certain things should be prescribed to the child in this way, because a child will eventually see they have duties as a human being.
Duty toward self
The child should be conscious that they possess a certain dignity that lets them act so as not to violate, in their own person, the dignity of all humankind.
Duty toward others
Recognition of the dignity of mankind in the personality of others. This is justice. A child should learn to respect the rights of others.
Modern teaching often divides into two camps: those who emphasise duty and rigour and those who emphasise inclination and joy. Kant refuses the choice. He thinks both matter and gives careful arguments for when each one should take the lead. The result is a more nuanced position than the simpler camps allow.
When inclination is better than duty
Kant says something that surprises many readers. Doing by inclination is often better than doing by duty.
This is not a casual remark. Kant means it. A person who naturally loves their work does better work than a person who only forces themselves through it from a sense of duty. A child who genuinely wants to help a sibling helps better than a child who is dragged into helping by parental instruction. Inclination, when it points in the right direction, is faster, more energetic, and more reliable than duty.
So why bother with duty at all? Because inclination does not always point in the right direction. A person inclined to laziness does not feel inclined to study. A person inclined to anger does not feel inclined to forgive. A child inclined to selfishness does not feel inclined to share. In all these cases, inclination either fails or pulls away from what is right.
This is where duty steps in. Duty does not replace inclination as the everyday driver of action. Duty is the backup system that takes over when inclination is wrong or absent.
Most of the time, when inclination points in the right direction
A person who naturally loves their work does it better than one forcing themselves through duty. Inclination, when aligned with what is right, is faster, more energetic, and more reliable. The complication is that inclination does not always point in the right direction.
When duty is essential
Inclination has limits. In some situations, the sense of duty is essential.
The first kind of situation is when inclination falls short. A student feels inclined to give up on a hard problem. Duty pushes them to keep going. A child feels inclined to lie to avoid trouble. Duty pushes them to tell the truth. In these cases, the inclination would lead the person to a worse outcome; duty rescues them.
The second kind is when inclination is positively wrong. A bully is inclined to enjoy hurting smaller children. Inclination, in this case, is malicious, and following it produces moral disaster. Duty (do not hurt people, treat them as ends not means) is the only force strong enough to override the wrong inclination.
The third kind is when inclination is absent. A child does not feel like helping a stranger they will never see again. Inclination is silent. Duty fills the gap: this is what a moral person does for another human being, regardless of feeling.
For a teacher, the practical task is to build duty as a reliable backup. The child needs to know that when inclination fails (and it will), duty will hold them in place. The duty cannot wait to be invented in the moment of crisis. It has to be built in advance, through years of careful moral training.
When inclination falls short, is wrong, or is absent
Inclination falls short: the student wants to give up; duty pushes them through.
Inclination is wrong: a bully enjoys hurting; duty overrides.
Inclination is absent: the child does not feel like helping a stranger; duty fills the gap.
The concept of duty in children
Kant adds a careful observation about how children handle the concept of duty.
A child may not always see the reason for a particular duty. The reasons are sometimes abstract; the child’s mind is still developing the capacity for abstract reasoning. So it is acceptable, even necessary, for certain duties to be prescribed to the child without full justification at the moment of teaching.
Why is this acceptable? Because a child will eventually be able to see that they have certain duties as a human being. The duties were always there. The child simply was not yet able to see them. The teaching is laying a foundation that the child’s later reasoning will fill in.
But this concession comes with a strict limit. The duty being prescribed must actually be a real duty (a duty that holds for any human being, not just a teacher’s preference). And the teaching must aim at the moment when the child will see for themselves why the duty is real. A duty taught without ever being unpacked is not a Kantian duty; it is rote compliance.
The duty can be prescribed in advance and explained later
The child may not always see the reason for a duty at the time. Kant accepts that certain duties can be prescribed without full justification, because the child will eventually see they have duties as a human being. The explanation must come; rote compliance alone is not Kantian.
Duty toward self
Kant breaks the concept of duty into two halves: duty toward self and duty toward others. Both halves matter for childhood moral training.
Duty toward self is a less familiar concept for many modern readers, but it is central to Kant. The child should become conscious that they possess a certain dignity. This dignity enables them, and every other human being, to act so as not to violate, in their own person, the dignity of all humankind.
The phrasing is dense. The point is this: a person is not just an instrument for other people’s projects, even their own. The person owes themselves the same respect they owe others. A child who lets themselves be degraded, who treats their own body or mind with contempt, who sells themselves cheap, is violating a duty they have to themselves.
This shows up in practical ways. Self-respect, basic care of body and mind, refusal to participate in one’s own humiliation: all of these are aspects of duty toward self. A teacher who helps a student see this is doing important work.
Recognising one’s own dignity as a human being
A person is not just an instrument for others’ projects, even their own. They owe themselves the same respect they owe others. A child who lets themselves be degraded, who treats their own mind or body with contempt, is violating a duty they have to themselves.
Duty toward others
The second half is more familiar. Duty toward others is the recognition of the dignity of mankind in the personality of others. Specifically, it shows up as justice.
A child should learn to respect the rights of others. This is not just being nice. It is recognising that the other person, whoever they are, has the same dignity as the child themselves. The other person’s rights are not a courtesy the child extends; they are something the child must honour because the dignity behind them is real.
This connects directly to Kant’s “treat each person as an end and never as a mere means” principle. A child who has internalised duty toward others does not use other people as tools, even when it would be convenient. They recognise the other person’s full status as a human being and act accordingly.
The duties toward self and others, taken together, form the complete moral picture. The mature moral person honours their own dignity and the dignity of every other person, equally. Either half on its own is incomplete.
Recognition of the dignity of mankind in another person, expressed as justice
A child should learn to respect the rights of others. The other person’s rights are not a courtesy the child extends; they are something the child must honour because the dignity behind them is real. This connects directly to “treat each person as an end and never as a mere means.”
How was this article?