Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between

According to Kant, morality has foundation in legislation by pure reason. Further, morality consists of categorical imperatives that must be obeyed for their own sake, regardless of the consequences. The categorical imperative underpins morality. It is only possible to have a moral

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

All of the above, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy. He was of the view that human beings can determine and manage to live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without assistance of anyone else, even without any divine support or intervention (Guyer). In this paper we will discuss the extent to which Kant's view of human nature provides a sustainable ground work for his views on the relationship between nations. In order to determine this, different opinions of Kant will be discussed regarding what his views about the human nature and how he compared it with the nations or states.

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

Another key strength to the theory is the concentration on motivation. The motive for which an individual acts has more validity then the unknown consequences that lie ahead. According to Kant we are motivated by our duty, and we know that motivation comes from an internal source. Motive provides substance to personal decisions and choices that are made. In order to feel a duty to react or act in a certain manner, an individual uses internal reasoning when making decisions. As moral agents who have the ability to reason Kant’s theory is right on the target. We will consciously make decisions by the things or factors that we are motivated by. I feel that it is safe to say that most people actions are guided by motives whether they are morally correct or not.

Michael Walzer, in the article of “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”, -meaning refute absolutism without denying reality of moral consequences-, distances himself from the saying that democracy is supposed to be based on rules of law and morals. He explains the struggle that a political actor must endure in order to balance his moral principles while exercising his political power. He continues on to say that politician in a contemporary democratic world who acts on behalf of the people he is pledged to serve must sometimes act dishonestly because “power and glory’ is envied by all and the politician has to win by any means necessary. He argues that a politician can meet both moral-absolutist and consequentialist moral demands provided he does what is politically necessary but understands himself to be guilty as a result. In his view, a politician can dismiss some of his moral beliefs to accomplish what he sees as the right political action; therefore, practices “dirty hands”. If the politician doesn’t practice dirty hands then he is

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

Kantian deontology follows the notion that our actions are based on solely on duty. This duty is derived from reason and is based on principle. It is upon this principle that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined. By stating that our actions are based on duty alone, Kant implies that one’s feelings and emotions do not play a role in morality. Simply put, emotions have no moral worth. Therefore, a person

Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant’s theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

“He who seeks the salvation of the soul, of his own and of others, should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence”, stated Max Weber in his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (Weber 4). In order to participate in politics, an individual will inevitably encounter times when they must break with traditional morality. An ethic of ultimate ends is not realistic or plausible for the field of politics, particularly when it is followed steadfastly. An ethic of responsibility is more compatible with politics, as it allows the response to a situation to be determined by the circumstances rather than inflexible rules, while still maintaining accountability for one’s own actions. This flexibility is most necessitated by the politicians use of violence. There is a fallacy that an “ethic of ultimate ends” and an “ethic of responsibility” are incompatible and cannot be reconciled. A politician can follow an ethic of responsibility, while still following certain ethical principles of ultimate ends, on which they will hold their ground. Weber states, “... an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements, which only in unison constitute a genuine man- a man who can have the ‘calling for politics’”(Weber 4). True morality in politics is found in the compromise between the competing ethical codes, and the ability to discern when this compromise is necessary is

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)

Even more important to his beliefs is the deontological ethics with which he uses to prescribe the exact type of morality that will be linked to politics; the universal moral imperatives he touts in Perpetual Peace where he writes, "political maxims adopted must not be influenced by the prospect of any benefit or happiness which might accrue to the state if it followed them" rather "they should be influenced only by the pure concept of rightful duty" . Therefore, by Kant's own argument, no law can exist whose only purpose is to further the state's goals, but rather must exist through a lens that considers the moral imperatives that deontology so passionately clings to. Even Kant, however, is not blind to the difficulty in this. As with the concept of politics and morality co-existing, Kant concedes that a state operating only on the basis of universal ethics is "far-fetched in theory" - perhaps even impossible - but not so impossible that society should not try. Kant's real-world application may only exist in his head at the moment, but he unapologetically believes that not only can a 'moral politician' exist but is an