Immanuel Kant: Universal Moral Law

Part A: Immanuel Kant’s principle is to help someone no matter what your desires are, rather than what you ought to help someone if you care or want to be a good person. This refers back to hypothetical and categorical, where hypothetical oughts are possible if we have desires rather than categorical ought where it is possible due to reason (EMP 128-129). The “ought” implies that the ultimate aim of rational beings is to become perfectly moral. If we ought to work then we can become perfect and it can be possible. Kant believes using the Categorical Imperative is best, because it expresses to act only according to that maxim, whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal moral law (RTD 60). This practical reason issues that it commands people to act only in accordance with reason and morality and see if you can harmonize it to become a natural law; the principle of action example is to never lie or to not steal. Kant’s practical reason of duty is to respect the law; he is a deontological thinker (act of duty which is right in virtue of their motives) rather than a consequentialist (their morality which does not involve consequences). The Categorical Imperative will produce moral codes that are absolute, unconditional, and
His Categorical Imperative has given me insight of examples; for instance, if someone were to insult me, then I would kill that person who insulted me. If this became a maxim, then everyone would kill each other due to being insulted. I understand Kant’s perspective and reasoning behind using this imperative. Reflecting the imperative to a universal law is quite understanding because you would want a world that is livable and conceivable; therefore, Kant’s test should not be modified to better reflect the Categorical