Immanuel Kant suggests that actions are performed either by inclination or by reason. Inclination being desires, feelings, etc. along the entire line of subjectivity, requiring only action apparently relating to “self-love”. Or actions are performed outside of reason, including objective reasoning such as duty, goodwill, and respect. This seems to be consistent with reason: one should act when the action is “right,” emphasizing that these actions are universal in nature. Kant suggests that one can determine whether an action is "good" or moral by focusing specifically on motivations rather than outcomes. He states that there are two imperatives for judging an action. The categorical imperative is stated throughout the text, notably in section 2, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (p30)”. In short, we must act according to objective behaviors. The second is the hypothetical imperative: “…an action is good for an objective, possible or real”. Therefore, motive is subjective because it adheres to the tendency to achieve a specific result. The flaw I find in this school of thought comes in the form of motive analysis, how can one truly “know” the motives for an action? Kant addresses this point at the beginning of the second section: “We like to flatter ourselves that we falsely claim a nobler motive; but face to face we can, even by the strictest examination, fully plumb the depths of the secret motives of our actions (19)” He goes on to further say that one must be a “cold observer” and not take into consideration personal experience (19). p20). Since reason is said to be universal, this means that subjective inclinations are not necessary to examine actions because... middle of article...... a bad example of the universality of Kant's theories because murder is still an error. countries constantly go to war. Regardless, he sincerely believes that an individual could have universally moral actions and act in accordance with reason if their maxim is that of the intention to be moral. Although I do not agree with Kant's theories as a whole, I can appreciate his desire to make reason reason. a universal quality in people while also raising the so-called bar of what is considered moral. The religious undertones and subjective comments, as I consider racist, slightly discredit his objective understanding of morality. I understand the era in which it was written. Immanuel Kant's views allowed for the formation of a strict moral code, not rejecting inclinations but rather placing them in their own category. Separating Feelings from Logic Isn't Necessarily a Bad Thing.