Kant's deontological ethics focuses morality on objective duties rather than on the consequences of actions. We cannot base morality on emotions since each person has a different reason for feeling certain emotions. For example, if what is moral is determined by happiness, then the thief seeks joy by stealing. Kant's ethics instead revolves around maxims and moral rules. Moral rules are universal commandments that everyone must follow, such as “don’t steal.” Maxims, on the other hand, are subjective rules that people have, such as "I will not steal." Maxims may or may not coincide with moral rules. For example, a liar has the maxim “I will lie.” Kant further expands his theory by listing two categorical imperatives, namely the universal formation of law and humanity as the final formulation. The formulation of universal law dictates that one must act as if its maxims were to become moral rules. Humanity as an end says that we must always treat other humans as an end and never as a mere means. Making false promises is an example of treating others as mere means. Note, however, that this does not mean that one cannot use another as a means to an end, just as a student uses a teacher to obtain his education. The difference between the first and second example is the presence of consent and respect for the autonomy of the other. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayWhen one applies Kant's ethics to common moral scenarios, more often than not, one can get a clear picture of what is right and wrong. For example, according to a fundamental ethical principle, stealing is bad and helping others is good. Stealing is wrong because it violates Kant's categorical imperative to never treat other humans as mere means. Furthermore, theft would also not be in accordance with the universal law of nature, because if theft became a moral rule, personal effects or personal property would have no meaning. That being said, the things that make an action good give us a reason to do that action, and the things that make an action bad prevent us from performing that action. Categorical imperatives motivate one to keep maxims that conform to universal rules, because one must act as one wants others to act toward others. By respecting others, we maintain a sense of order because we encourage others to respect their peers. In this case, it differs from the golden rule because one does not act in the interest of one's well-being, but in the interest of the universe. On the other hand, a criticism of Kant's Deontology is his perspective on animals. For Kant, animals are not included in his theory because they are not rational beings. So, we have no duties towards animals. This can be problematic, however, because even putting animals aside, many humans suffer from mental illnesses that put them in a position that is not entirely rational. For example, depression or anxiety can cause the senses to think about irrational things. If Kant's theory applies, deontology would suggest that one has no duties towards these fellow human beings either, but it does not seem morally correct to ignore them or treat them less than someone who possesses a full rationality. One way for ethics to get out of this predicament would be to say that everyone has a duty to themselves to treat non-rational beings, humans and animals alike, correctly. 107-18.