What is the distinction between acting in accord with duty vs. acting from the motive of duty?

These philosophies are from philosopher Immanuel Kant. These arguments came from book 1 of the Groundwork. The motive in duty is also known as acting in accordance with the obligation. The action in acting from duty and the motive in duty is the same. The difference is the motive or the motivation of the action in the play.

The name of the ideas helps us understand it further. Acting from duty is an action we do because we are supposed to, regardless of if we are interested in it or not. Acting from motive is something that you do because you enjoy.

Immanuel Kant was known for philosophy. He lived from 1724 to 1804. He believed and created transcendental idealism which our experiences that we have are how they appear to others. Acting in accord with duty seems worthless or not as important as during something so that you are acting from duty. One example that Kant gives is about a store clerk who is making a sale.

If he changes the price of something to a lower price, you must determine his reason. If the store clerk wanted to make the sale and collect the commission, then he was acting in accord with duty. If he store clerk wants to help someone, then he is acting from the motive of duty.

According to kant, an action is good because of its willing, not by what is produces. when acting from the motive of duty, we are acting out of concern for the moral law and because the action is, of itself, objectively necessary to perform. by merely acting in accord with duty, our actions just so happen to match up with those required by moral law, if they were done from selfish motivations they, according to kant, morally worthless. it is the distinction between doing the right thing for the wrong reason and doing the right thing for right reason.