Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest moral theorists of the 18th century. He is the brains behind the aptly named moral theory, Kantian deontology. His moral theory “is widely considered the most important and influential of all deontological theories” (Burnor and Raley). It has many attractive aspects, but it is not perfect. Two attractive qualities of Kant's moral theory are that it aims at true (and logical) universality and the principle of ends. But as stated previously, Kantian ethics is not perfect. Two unappealing qualities are Kant's failure to consider the consequences that result from certain moralities and the "rational agent objection" (Burnor and Raley). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The universality of morality tops the list of “attractive qualities” of Kantian deontology. He uses the term maxim to mean “a rule of conduct or behavior by which one may act in accordance” (Burnor and Raley). When it comes to the fundamental principles of the universality of morality, Kant's "strategy is to let the morality of an act depend on whether rational meaning can be given to the fact that that act is established as a universal practice” (Burnor and Raley). The best way to demonstrate how a maxim is rational enough to be universalized is to apply it to a simple concept like lying. Can lies be universalized? The answer would be "no" because the purpose of lying is to deceive someone (whether it's a big or small deception) and if lying were an everyday maxim then everyone would know that 'he is deceived. Which simply defeats the purpose. In relation to this, an observation that results from the study of the universality of Kant's morality is that "each person has the same moral value, it follows that each person deserves exactly the same degree of respect" (Burnor and Raley). Reading this may make you think of the Golden Rule, but it's not the same thing. The rational meaning of the universalization of a maxim is what differentiates Kant's belief from the Golden Rule. What we must remember from Kant's remarks is that he wants to try to show how moral principles can arise from reason. An additional detail that makes universality attractive is the fact that it addresses utilitarianism's weakness of not even having universalism. The principle of ends is another attractive quality of Kantian ethics. Essentially, the ends principle is to “Act in a way that treats everyone affected by your action (including yourself) as an end and never as a means only” (Burnor and Raley). Intrinsic value is essential and must be taken into consideration when it comes to the purpose principle. Honestly, this principle can be a little confusing if you don't know what Kant's definition of "means" and "ends" is. In this case, the “means” is commonly defined as a tool or even a means to achieve your goal at a certain cost. Then there is the “end,” which is the goal you are trying to achieve. According to the authors of the book, “the Kantian principle of the end offers us profound moral insight” (Burnor and Raley). The best example used to demonstrate this principle is Al's dishonest treatment of Mrs. Satzoner (the customer) in the book. Long story short, Al lies to Ms. Satzoner that the SUV she is looking to purchase is in "perfect condition" (Burnor and Raley), in order to complete the sale of the SUV. Al obviously knows the history of.