Kant's Argumentative Essay

The moral quality of an action is judged by the motive that shaped the consequence of an individual’s actions, not by the actual action’s consequence. Kant believes actions are really only moral if they are commenced out of respect for the moral law (as opposed to John S. Mill who thinks the motivation is based off of need or desire). An action is moral if it stands in the Categorical Imperative Category. The categorical imperative is acting only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In simpler terms, Kant’s definition of the C.I. can be described as act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people. Kant wants everyone to eventually get to a moral enough place

According to Kant and the C.I., lying is definitely not permissible. We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could adopt universally. This rule could not be adopted universally, only because it would be self-defeating, meaning people would stop believing one another, thus proving why lying would not be good for society. Even though Kant would probably disagree, there can be some exceptions to this law. Lying to save someone’s life, lying to cover-up a surprise, or even to help yourself. In this case, lying could become part of the universal law. This is my personal perspective on the moral theory, but thinking in this way would still be to treat others in a way that challenges the moral law. It is correct that everyone uses people as a means to an end, it’s just part of a society these days. Bus/taxi-drivers get us where we want to go; factory workers are the means to manufacturing objects and ultimately gaining profit for their employer. But using people only to get what we want and consistently disrespecting their human worth is against the moral law as Kant would put