In order to achieve the above task the paper has been divided in four parts. Firstly it is important to identify the methods of justification used by Kant in Groundwork of Metaphysics of Moral. A general overview is also made regarding the value of Kant's work for the researchers in the area of moral philosophy. From that the second part of this essay refers to the theories of justification used by other philosophers, namely Rawls and Hare. This essay would argue that although many of Kant's concepts are used, the extent to which they served as models of theory justification is rather some degree of. The idea of (preference) utilitarianism is also presented in this part in order to explain the stages of development of moral theory in the history. Part Three evaluates the possible relation between the methods of justification used by Kant and those applied by D. Gauthier and A. Gewirth. ...
Finally, it is critical to summarise the views presented in the above two parts in an effort to identify the possible relation between Kant's moral theory and those by other theorists in the area of moral philosophy.
As this paper deals with the Kantian Moral Theory, it is very important to have a clear idea of the 'Moral Theory'. Firstly, morality concerns conduct. It is about what a person ought to do, and how one's actions reflect morality. Nevertheless, this does not distinguish morality from other types of knowledge, for mathematics and law also concern with our conduct. Secondly, moral problems are normative, i.e. they relates to a typical standard or rules by affirming how things should or ought to be and how to value them. This is in sharp contrast with descriptive theory, which pertains to describing reality. Thirdly, even normative problems concern what ought to be done, not all normative problems can be described as normal. As a result, the task is to make a distinction moral problems from non-moral normative problems.
With this foundational idea of morality in mind, we can now give a definition of morality in order to evaluate how 'moral' the theories to be discussed are. Something is 'morally ought to be' if and only if the 'ought to be' is propounded as
1. Action-guiding - X intends this to guide action.
2. Other-addressing - addresses to somebody other than the one saying it (X).
3. Other-regarding - this is the reason why it is ought to be because some outer element is involved to others than X.
4. Co natively independent - independent of desire, i.e. one has to do it whether he wants to or not.
5. Categorically binding - overrides all prescription that is not within one. to 4., i.e. moral ought to's override other