Kant's Moral Judgement

When considering what moral action to make, Kant asked people to follow two questions, what would happen if one made the maxim action of a universal law? The other question is if that universal action is possible. In this case one might think that killing would not create a better good because of their moral rights and it would be completely wrong. However when it comes to O.J, like I stated before he obviously had different moral rights than most people and he believed what he did was right. When the investigation staff could not find sufficient evidence O.J Simpson believed even more that he was not guilty. When he felt he had the jury on his side believing him he also believed he had done nothing wrong and maybe did the right justified thing. Even if he did do the wrong thing he had rational reasons for his doing and determined his moral obligation. Kant believed that all moral judgments are rationally supportive. So in this case O.J did what he thought was a good moral judgment therefore he believes to be rationally supported. …show more content…
I do not personally agree with Kant’s philosophy for this reason. I do not agree with Kant that just because one thinks they are morally correct they do not have to face moral consequences because they can explain their reasoning and their ethical background behind it. I believe that if one makes a poor choice or decision than one should face the consequences they deserve. O.J Simpson made very poor choices and for that he should have consequence regarding his