Kant's Metaphysics Of Moral Analysis

The Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant, is known to be one of the most influential philosophers in history. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals Kant discusses the idea of Goodwill and how it can be attained through duty and our morals. Throughout my paper I will talk about the meaning of people acting upon their morals and acting upon their duties, as to Kant refers in his words, what you want to do vs. what people ought to do. I will compare what is right vs. what is wrong considering hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. According to Kant, goodwill is conditioned, being absolutely good, which blocks out one’s moral act. If someone is being good to be happy then they

Hypothetical imperative is made of experiences, if you want x then you do y. Categorical imperative is what one ought to do, it is absolute duty. Our moral duties are categorical because they imply to us unconditionally, whether we want to or not, we know that we ought to do it. The imperative is what tells us right from wrong in what we do. As Kant is trying to show, skill has nothing to do with morality. These commands are so people can follow them, so that we know what we ought to do. Kant says, our actions can be judged considering that everyone does the action as well. This means that if everyone were able to do the same action could the action be questioned. For example, if everyone were able to lie, then we would never know when they would really be telling the truth. I could tell someone that I am going to pay them back 20$ in one week once I borrow it, but if everyone were to do this and not pay back as I said I would then everyone would already know the outcome of borrowing money from one another. Kant's principle of 'Universal Law of Nature' tells me that my action is undeniably wrong. Kant also claims there may be some actions that may be able to exist under a universal law but it may not be possible to will that their 'maxims' be raised to universal status. This is because if this action in converted into a Universal law, then the action would contradict

Being happy means you enjoy everything you do. When being moral you do something because you have to, its what you ought to do. Happiness cant have anything to do with morality because its not universal. People are happy by satisfying their desires but everyone has different desires. To suffer making others happy means that you are a good person and you are being moral. This is doing the right thing rather then being happy to actually help others. If you are happy then you are a selfish person according to Kant. Someone could be the happiest person ever but the real question would be, do they deserve to be happy based on their moral worth. What the outcome of our actions is not what Kant refers to but what the action we take on is what matters. All of our actions should come from duty, no inclination, no self-interest, or feelings being involved. Kant’s proposition as to what he is saying is that if you don’t want to be moral then you should not be reading his work. Kant’s idea for the nature of laws is to give our morals more worth if they were to be universal. Law and reasoning is what makes duties our duty and help people know what is right from wrong when taking action in certain situations. God is rational and beyond reason. God is all powerful. He is not evil because he is not limited. God does not need command therefore god doesn’t have a duty because there is nothing