Can you explain Kant's concept about thinking about the maxium of our
action and not its outcome?  Actually, what does maxim mean?  Can you
give me an example where an act in accord with both duty and
inclination?  Can you give me an example where an act is in accord
with duty but NOT inclination?  I am so confused about these two
things.  Just a sentence or two will help me or some links.  Thanks.

Hi,

Don't take what I am about to say as the gospel...I'm only a second
year philosophy student.  A maxim basically is a principle or idea
(sort of).  In the case of Kant,the maxim by which you act can more or
less be interpreted as the principle by which you act, or the idea or
reason that guides your action.  Kant's  thing about duty and
inclination can (and sometimes is) interpreted as an epistemological
claim, which waters it down slightly; that is, that we can only truly
know for a fact that we have acted according to duty and reason where
inclination is lacking.  I prefer to interpret the claim more
strictly.

Kant himself uses good examples, best thing to do is take a look at
his groundwork.  Or 'Ethics' by Peter Singer (ed.) has a couple of
very useful selections.

A maxim, basically, is a principle which determines when you act. You
could think of formalizing it ?I will do action A, in circumstance B,
for reason C.? (this is rough & ready)

The point for Kant is that morality doesn?t just reside in what you
do, but basically, in the reasons for which you do it. For example
John and Robert might both help a little old lady across the street.
Her the outcome is the same, but is it the same moral action? Not,
according to Kant, if John acts on the principle (maxim) ?I will help
little old ladies across the street, when I think they are rich, for
the purpose of getting in their wills? but Robert acts on the
principle ?I will help little old ladies across the street, whenever
they need help, because it is important to help people in need.? Even
though John helps the old lady, he doesn?t act for a moral reason, he
just wants to get rich.

What is interesting her is that for John, it?s clear his *action* is
in accordance with both duty and inclination. It?s good to help little
old ladies, and he wants to get rich. For Kant, just to reiterate,
that?s less important. What matters for is that for John the motive of
duty doesn?t plays the key role. In John?s case, if the lady weren?t
rich he would not (based on his maxim) help her. So we can see he
isn?t acting from duty even though his action is helpful.* Similarly,
we could imagine that Robert really doesn?t like little old ladies, or
that he?d much rather spend the time watching baseball than helping
the little old lady. In this case, his inclination (desire) would be
to ignore the little old lady, but because he acts on the principle of
duty, he does anyway.

Here?s a good link on Kant: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/


*Again, very roughly, this can help to understand why Kant talks about
moral principles as ?categorical? ? you have to be motivated by them
all the time. If you are only motivated to help little old ladies in
order to achieve some other end (to get money, e.g.) you aren?t acting
morally (in Kant?s terms, a hypothetical imperative)