Immanuel Kant Moral Principle

According to Immanuel Kant, 18th century philosopher, the moral worth of an action depends only on the intentions of its performer, not on the consequences. It is one’s duty or respect of moral law to act in the way of what is morally right, not in a way that he/she wants or desires. Another requirement of an action to be called moral is that it should be performed out of the good will. Action according with good will means, that that action is not done for another end, in is done for its own sake. Therefore, an action is moral only if it conforms to moral principle and that principle is an end in itself.
It follows that people should always reason. Before undertaking any action, they should think of a principle according to which they act; then they should understand whether or not their principle could become a universal law, only after passing this test, the action can be called moral. For example, Armen owes money to Karen. The time has passed, and Karen wants his money back and threatens Armen to take his house, where live his wife and daughter. So Armen lies to Karen, saying that he will return his debt after a week, though he would not be able to do so. Armen’s principle, in …show more content…
However, the case of a German family lying to the Nazi officer about Jews in their house makes no sense. According to Kant, they should not lie (because it cannot become a universal law), but most of the people would agree that letting those innocent people be killed is more immoral than lying. In my view, Kantian ethics lacks certain moral value for consequences of an action. I am not saying all that matters are the results, but the outcomes are also important. Maybe this theory can be improved by adding one more test for moral action. After defining that there can be such a universal norm, one should also rationally think about the possible consequences. In this scenario, the Jews will stay