In some moral systems, notably that of Kant, real moral worth comes only with acting rightly because it is right. If you do what you should but from some other motive, such as fear or prudence, no moral merit accrues to you. Yet that in turn seems to discount other admirable motivations, such as acting from sheer benevolence or sympathy. The question is how to balance these opposing ideas, and also how to understand acting from a sense of obligation without duty or rightness beginning to seem a kind of fetish. In Hume morality does not exist as an independent source of motivations: we only call something a duty if there is an antecedent motivation to perform it, but one that has become socially cemented, such as it being required through a convention to which everyone is supposed to adhere but that is itself only important due to its utility.