Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory

946 Words4 Pages
In this essay I will explore two articles that explain the moral theory. The first article is called “ Selections from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant. The second article that I will be comparing to Immanuel Kant’s is called “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” by Onora O’Niell. I will also be giving a brief summary and comparing each article. By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things. Being good, in others words moral, means what? Kant is that the only thing without qualification that is good is the act of having a good will. The good will is the will to do the right thing and everything else (ie. money, courage etc) can be used for good or evil. But the will to do good is always good and the good will must be good in itself. Thus, what Kant is…show more content…
In the first place, since all obligations are supreme, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts ( for instance, telling the truth about something or protecting somebody that you love). The second problem with his theory is that it doesn’t take feelings into account. What Kant does say is that any accidental maxims that would require coercing somebody into doing something without consent or deceiving someone is wrong ( O’Neill, 113). But what O’Neill says is that when we act on such maxims we treat others as mere means and as things rather than as ends in themselves. Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114). By completely ignoring the consequences of your actions, using other as a mere means by deceiving them of something, and coercing somebody, is that being morally good? Therefore, O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at
Open Document