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 saying that acting from the good will is the only way to really be moral.
This leads us into what Kant
…show more content…
Secondly, she explains how certain parts of the theory don’t make sense. Lastly, she provides a much easier way of learning the categorical imperative, and this helps people understand the concept a lot easier.
Onora O’Neill thought that Kant’s moral theory was too difficult understand so she proposed an easier version. What she does is try to pick it apart and focus on one particular form. O’Neill decides to focus on the Formula of the End in Itself. What she says is that the difference between intention and maxims (a rule or a principle of action) doesn’t matter because we can create that corresponding maxim by taking away references to particular times and places (O’Neill, 113). What she is saying that the term maxim and intention are pretty much the same thing (O’Neill,