If so: aim – Zetherin

1 acting from duty and in accordance with inclination;

1.1 You might reap benefits in addition to having moral import to your action.

2 acting from duty and contrary to inclination;

2.1 You might not reap benefits, or suffer pains, but maintain moral import.

3 acting from inclination and contrary to duty;

3.1 No moral important, but morally wrong? Which is it? It would seem that “from inclination” along lacks all moral import. “Contrary to duty” would be a condition for moral wrongness.

4 acting from inclination and in accordance with duty;

4.1 No moral worth, like “from inclination” solely. So this one reduces to that. This is why I think “duty” in the “in accordance” form is equivocal w/r/t “duty” in the “from duty” form–because 4 reduces to, insofar as its moral status, that of solely acting from inclination. “in accordance with duty” adds nothing; so it seems that “duty” of this sense does not imply that it is a “possible source for future moral import.” Ask the question: If I see that I acted in accordance with duty (duty X), what if I {act from it} next time? How might I see that I {could} act in accordance with duty? If I see that I {could} act in accordance with it, what might prompt me to act merely in accordance with it (as opposed to explicitly choosing to act from it)? If I see that it is a “duty” which I could act in accordance with, and it is indeed my own duty, it would seem that I’d opt to act from it, rather than merely in accordance with it. If I {see} rightly that it is my duty.

5. acting contrary to both inclination and duty.

5.1 What does “contrary” mean? It seems to have a passive and active interpretation. I can act against a duty of mine, which presupposes that I am not acting from it (for I might have another duty opposed to it). This would be the active interpretation. I act contrary to you in that I actively oppose you. The passive interpretation is such that I inadvertently act not from duty (so inclination). So, acting from inclination entails that you are not acting from duty. But does “contrary” mean “passive opposition”? Or does it mean “active opposition”? I can act against one of my duties, or I can simply not act from it (while acting from an inclination that is coincidentally opposed to that duty). But in this latter case, we have two more interpretations: My inclination can be coincidentally against my duty or I can have an inclination that is actively against my duty.) Are these fruitful distinctions to make?

Surely, “duty,” when acting in accordance with it, is not some other kind of duty from which you could act. If it is, we must assume that the set of all duties which you can act in accordance with are possible duties from which you could act.

We seem to be saying that acts can have as their source or motivation inclination or duty. But the set of those acts from inclination and from duty are the same set.

The set of acts that are in accordance with duty is not the same set as acts done from duty. Therefore, we can distinguish acts done from duty and acts done in accordance with duty. But what about being “naturally inclined” makes the sets different? Acting from duty is never a matter of natural inclination.

This makes it possible to still perform addition/multiplication on irrationals.

And it is also the method for obtaining a rational number to whatever degree one desires.

(It’s where the magic next digit in the expansion of pi comes from!)

I’ve spent the past hour poking around on your website. You’re a really good web designer.

Keep up the great work,
Raj