In this paper I will illustrate and interpret morality through the eyes of Immanuel Kant (otherwise

known as father of Western philosophy) and will argue why his moral structure, constructed to help
guide the moral agent, is one of the best theologies of how moral conduct should be withheld.

Kant managed to construct a moral system that is practically infallible. The basis of Kant's system lies
on the key concept of ´acting morally because doing so is morally right`. Even Though this phrasing
might superficially cause confusion, it is entirely self-explanatory. The main message Kant is
depicting with this argument is that acting morally has little to do with accomplishing of what we
desire, but rather to fulfill a sense of duty when performing any act, as to suggest that we, as rational
creatures, have a certain obligation to optimize our actions to the fullest, or in simpler terms, to be
guided by virtue and virtue only.

Overall, when talking about the fundamentals of ethical rules, Kant strongly defended that religion
and morality should be separate, acknowledging that religion was not the source from which to obtain
the answer to how moral conduct should be guided.
Justifying such with the belief that reason was the only true source of moral guidance, to be able to
determine what's right and wrong. Kant believed that the shared ability of humans to reason, as
cognitive beings, is what truly makes us morally significant. He, therefore, believed that all humans
should have the right to common dignity and respect. In order to explain the mechanism developed to
distinguish what's moral and immoral, Kant firstly focused on understanding the Categorical
Imperative in its two main formulations. One being the Universalizability Principle, which states that
one must “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law without a contradiction”. By ´maxim´ he is referring to a norm or principle of
action, and by ´universal law´ he describes a norm that must always be applied in similar situations,
without exception.
The other formulation is considered by him the ideal `Formula of Humanity´, in which people are to
be treated as ends rather than means.

Establishing the main difference between this moral theology and the ones that involucrated religious
belief, whilst Kant's ethics viewed morality as a constant, present in all human beings the others
argued that good and bad are solely determined by a deity, or a diversity of gods who come up with all
ethical rules. Theories based on the existence of a divine force include The Divine Command Theory
and Natural Law Theory which portray God as an omnipotent being that classifies what is virtuous
and despicable.
With this it becomes clear that, independent from your religion, two plus two will always equal four,
and the sum of the angles of a triangle will always equal one-hundred-and-eighty degrees.

Highlighting a key difference between things we ought to do morally and things we ought to do for
other, non-moral, reasons, or as referred to in philosophical terms: inclinations. Kant also developed a
term to refer to these statements; hypothetical imperatives, which, in simpler terms connotate
commands you should follow, as your moral duty, exclusively if you want something. Which
essentially depicts a rather prudent goal to it rather than moral. On the other hand, when talking about
morality in itself, Kant conceived it in terms of what he called Categorical Imperatives. Substantially
defining them as commands we are to follow regardless of your desires, due to the simple fact that
moral obligations are derived from pure reason .
So when referring to moral duty, Kant leaves no doubt that it is irrelevant whether you strive to be
moral or not, because the moral law is binding on all of us, your moral duty is unyielding.
Even Though occasionally his theology might be considered too inflexible and overly rigid it nearly
overcomes any moral difficulty or doubt that may arise, as to the extent of its moral rightfulness.
However, a major flaw to this theory is when it is put into context it contradicts itself. A famous
example that notoriously illustrates this is the situation with the man and the ax. In the foreground a
murder with an ax in his hand has turned up at your house and he is asking you specifically where
your mother is, because he wishes to kill her. In this situation, from the Kantian perspective you
should tell the truth about where your mother is, regardless of the consequences (like her dying).
Evidently suggesting that the maxims that Kant put in place are too ambiguous. In essence, from my
point of view, the problem is the ability to cope with Universal rules in the real world ,where there are
never two identical situations.

In terms of content I firmly believe that the Kantian ethics are the most helpful for a general view of
moral decision-making. This is because of its central attempt to universalise laws of action, so that
they can be equally applied to all moral agents.
However, the evident problem is its lack of specificity.

On the other hand, one could also argue that being exposed to a dubious situation of ethical judgment
is preferable than to be deceived by fundamental truths and act in full accordance to those. This is due
to the fact that as we are unaware of the functioning of a more apt ethical model we are deprived from
decision-making freely as we rely on nothing other than our instincts and wishes, which both push us
away from our considerable moral duty as human beings but also embraces our natural human state of
acting without compassion, disregarding the common ground of all humans, reason. Therefore,
without autonomy, as in the ability to set a law for our own selves we are deprived from our elemental
condition as human beings, freedom and free will.

In virtue of all aspects previously mentioned, I firmly believe that the deontological theology
developed by Kant is the most well structured system of achieving freedom and acting morally right.
As it strives to create concrete statements about the morality and immorality of things, in the most
equal and unbiased manner possible, by acquiring the common feature of the human condition, as
carriers of reason, achieving morality through intellectual deduction. Although slightly ambiguous in
terms of maxims of moral laws, and at times presents arguments that are self destructive, as portrayed
by the well-known example of the man and the ax. Kantian ethics are irrefutable one of the greatest
theologies constructed to serve as a moral compass.