Many other philosophers have asserted that humanity's moral code is not the result of a divine source.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th-

Kant treated morality seriously, and he believed that we all should, regardless of our religious values or lack thereof. Because he
realized that if we go to religion for moral guidance, we won't all get the same response. But he believed morality was fixed,
almost mathematically accurate. Whether you're a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist, two plus two equals four. The same was true for
Kant's moral truths.

But he distinguished between what we should do ethically and what we should do for other, non-moral grounds. He highlighted
out that, much of the time, whether or not we should do something isn't truly a moral decision - rather, it's based on our
preferences. For example, if you want to make money, you should find a job. If you want to obtain an A in class, you need to
study.

These if-then sentences were dubbed hypothetical imperatives by Kant. If you desire something, you should obey the orders.
However, hypothetical imperatives are concerned with prudence instead of morality. So, if you don't want to work, you may
simply refuse. And if you don't care about earning a decent mark, studying is completely unnecessary! As a student, I think it'd be
a bad option, but it's still a possibility.

However, Kant saw morality from the perspective of categorical imperatives rather than hypothetical imperatives. Regardless of
your preferences, you must obey these commands. Categorical imperatives are our moral responsibilities, according to Kant, and
they are drawn from pure reason. He stated that it makes no difference whether you desire to be moral or not — moral law is
incumbent on all of us. And he said that you will not need theology to decide what that law is since what's good and bad can be
determined simply by using your intellect.

So, how can you determine what is moral? Kant stated that the categorical imperative can be construed in a variety of ways.
Essentially, diverse methods of wording or seeing the same fundamental notion. He also developed four versions of the
categorical imperative. Let me tell you about the two most well-known. The universalizability principle refers to the initial
statement of the categorical imperative. And Kant put it this way: “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

So, as a Kantian, I would tell myself, "What is the maxim of my action?" before acting. In other words, what is the basic rule that
underpins the specific action I'm contemplating? Assume I left my wallet in my room this morning. I don't have any time during
lectures to go grab it, and I'm starving. I see the student running the food kiosk in the union is deep in discussion, and I could
simply steal fruit and then go on my way.

Is it ethically correct for someone like me to do something like this? Well, the specific action I'm contemplating — snatching
fruit from a vendor without paying for it – constitutes theft. And if I accept the norm of stealing – which I do, whether I confess it
or not – then I am universalizing that behavior. I'm not advocating everybody should steal all the time. If you should be able to
accomplish it, then so should everyone else.

The problem is that this results in a contradiction – and recall, Kant clearly states that moral actions cannot result in
contradictions. The paradox here is that no one would argue that everybody should steal all the time. Because, if all of us should
steal, you should steal the fruit. And then I'd steal it from you, and you'd steal it from me, and it'd never stop, and no one will ever
get to taste any fruits.
As a result, thievery isn't universalizable. So, what Kant is advocating is that making exceptions for yourself is unjust. You don't
genuinely think thievery is ok, and picturing what it would be like to universalize it proves this. Now, Kant’s view that moral
rules apply to everyone equally sounds nice and fair. However, it can occasionally provide unforeseen effects.

Let's look at some basic Philosophy to understand how this formulation might go wrong. Assume Xavier and Ryan are having a
meal one evening. Then a stranger knocks on the door and demands to know where Ryan is so he may murder him. Xavier's
impulse is to lie and say Ryan isn't present at the moment to protect him from this would-be killer. But Kant insists that he cannot
lie — not even to protect Ryan's life.

Here's his argument: Imagine he's standing at the front doorway, chatting to the stranger. In the meantime, he assumes Ryan is
still in the kitchen, where he had left him. But, as it turned out, he was intrigued by the caller and accompanied him into the
living room, where he overheard the stranger deliver his warnings. Ryan rushed out the rear entrance, fearing for his life.
Meanwhile, Xavier, in his attempt to save him, informs the stranger that Ryan is not present, even though he believes he is. Based
on his lie, the stranger flees and murders Ryan as he turns the corner walking away from the home.

If he had revealed the truth, the stranger could have gone into the kitchen seeking Tony, giving Tony time to flee. He, however,
did not. According to Kant's logic, Xavier is now accountable for Tony's death because his falsehood caused it. Only the killer
would have been liable for any fatalities that may have occurred if he had disclosed the truth. He might have either declined to
answer the stranger or attempted to persuade him out of it. But there is one thing he is never allowed to do: break moral law,
although others are doing this for a noble purpose.

As a consequence, the initial statement of the categorical imperative concerns the universality of our activities. However, the
second version focuses on how we should treat others. And it goes like this: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
personal or in that of another, always as an end, and never as a mere means.”

It would be ok to treat objects as mere means - but not humans. That's because we are what Kant referred to as the ends in
ourselves. We are not merely things to be utilized by others. We are our means. We're reasonable and self-sufficient. We have the
power to set and strive toward our objectives. Coffee cups are provided for coffee drinkers. Humans exist solely for themselves.
So, to treat someone as an end in itself is to acknowledge the humanity of the person you're meeting, to understand that she has
ambitions, values, and interests of her own, and you must keep that in mind morally in your interactions with her.

Now, Kant noted out that we utilize people daily, and that's Ok. Because, most of the time, we utilize other people as a means to
an end, not as a means to an end. When we utilize them, we still acknowledge their humanity, and they consent to be exploited.
So, for example, we are consulting with our ethics professor to learn more about Kantian ethics. In our group, we helped each
other gather the information we needed to pass this paper.

Kant stated that because of our autonomy, you and I, our professor, and my groupmates all deserve not to be treated as mere
means. We are self-governing, unlike other objects in the world. We can create our own goals and make free judgments based on
our reasonable wills. We may create objectives for ourselves and work toward achieving those goals.

According to Kant, this endows us with absolute moral value, which implies we should not be influenced or exploit other
autonomous beings for our advantage. This means that dishonesty and lying are never acceptable. Since if I'm being deceived, I
won't be able to make an independent decision about how to respond because my decision is based on misleading information.
For example, I might agree to lend you money so you can purchase school supplies, but I would not agree to lend you money so
you can buy a new Xbox. So, when you mislead me about what you're going to do with the money you're asking for, you take
away my capacity to choose to support you on my own. You've treated me as if I were only a means to an end, with no regard for
my ambitions and interests. That violates Kant's second categorical requirement. As a result, Kant contended that appropriate,
logical application of the categorical imperative will take us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral actors.