Nonconsequentialism In Kant's Ethics

As I read the section on nonconsequentialist, I found myself agreeing more with them. Stated in our textbooks was “consequentialist [think] that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the effects of the action,” I see this as wrong because it is basically saying that the ends justify the means of something (102). I know that some people believe that this way of thinking is right, but I’m not one of them. I think that you have a moral obligation to know that results don 't justify is something is right or wrong, but like the nonconsequentialist believe “rightness deprives no from the consequences of an action but from its nature…” (102). Like Kant’s ethics, I believe that “right actions have moral value only if they are done with a ‘good will’” (102). From what I can understand a part of Kant’s ethics is saying that if you go into something with bad …show more content…
I’ve personally heard people say that they do something because someone else told them to do it or because they feel pity for a person or several people in a situation. I think that this goes against Kant’s ethics. From what I understand Kant believes that you should not have to feel that way about a situation to want to do something morally right, you should just do it because you know it is the right thing to do.
Another aspect of Kant’s ethics that I really agreed with and found enlightening is the Kantian view on punishment. I think that criminals have to be rehabilitated and that the safety of the public should be the main purpose of arresting people and locking them up, which I think it is. Although I agree with that part, I disagree with the Kantian view on punishment fitting the crime. I am against the death penalty for certain crimes. The textbook stated that the Kantian “principle constitutes a solid justification for capital punishment: killers should