Review Questions:

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

Kant stated that It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

In Hypothetical, it is needed to give an action in a situation while categorical requires what needs to be done.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same become a universal law.

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it.

The end justifies the mean. What ever you do makes the outcome.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

They are two different rule because what the two does is completely different from the other. They contrast.

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral truth. Do you agree or not?

No because it doesn't mean there is no moral truth when you do something that isn't in your motive. I think everything you do has moral truth in it, otherwise you won't be doing it.

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

Just like what I have said in one of the previous discussion questions, everyone has his or her own opinion. To others it may sound good, and to others it may sound bad. In my opinion, I think it's a bad criticism.