We don’t know what will make us happy. “The reason for this is that all the elements that belong to the concept of happiness are empirical- that is, they must be borrowed from experience” (Kant 174). The fact that an action may lead to happiness cannot be the grounds for moral obligation. Happiness is permissible in duty, however cannot be the reason for out actions. Duty is the necessity of act done out of respect for the law. His claim is all of our emotions react to non-rational passion but respect responds to reason, how we evaluate our projected maxims. Kant notes that “happiness” is too indefinite and too empirical to serve as the reason why we “ought” to do things. It is too indefinite because we all have different meanings of happiness; one person’s happiness can be someone else’s pain. For example for the people of France to ensure they are safe and happy, they banned Muslim women from wearing their burquas. This might please the people of France, however it upsets Muslim women who respect their religion and want to wear their …show more content…
Every rational being would follow the categorical imperative. Moral imperative is categorical because it is our duty to obey the law no matter what. Categorical imperative is independent of experience and done out of duty and respect for the law. While hypothetical imperative is too irrational and too practical to be used to justify moral law. Categorical imperative justifies every statement as being moral. Under no circumstances, should this not be true for categorical imperatives must be conventional to the universal law. Kant provides one example of a categorical imperative that states suicide is absolutely forbidden. God wants us to do our duty and live our life out, instead of taking the easy way out. Our self love is a feeling that is meant to promote life. As rational beings we need to be moving ourselves