Kant's Criticism Of Moral Law

A priori is not based on observation, which only tells us what we actually do, not what we should do. It is based on reason, an ethically important capability that humans have. Reason allows us to know the moral law and the behave morally. The moral law is binding for all rational creatures because it is derived from principles of pure reason. An immoral action, for Kant, is irrational. The good will is good unconditionally. It is intrinsically good, good in and of itself (Kant, Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals). The Holy Will is the will of perfectly rational being who will never want to do anything other than follow the moral law. Thus, only actions performed out of duty are morally worthy. It does not matter whether the outcome is

They can also cause other people to feel envious of you. Rosalind Hursthouse says it is hard to exactly describe the nature of any particular virtue, because they are many different character traits that come in different degrees; it is not all black and white (i.e., People can be more or less honest, it is not all or nothing). According to Rosalind, the deontologist has the list of moral rules that offer good moral guidance, the ideal versions of the theory. The virtue ethicist only has ‘do what the virtuous agent would do,’ which doesn’t offer any guidance unless you are, and you know you are, a virtuous agent in which case you don’t need the advice anyway. The virtues give us some guidance. Becoming a moral person can’t be learned, comes from growing up (Hursthouse, Normative Virtue Ethics). I think her response is successful. Nothing is ever really black and white, there are always shades of grey. Having a list of general list or morally correct rules and virtues to guide you as you grow up and learn and develop your own ideas or specifics of what is morally worthy seems more realistic than Kant’s black and white