Conversely, the standards were either only based on desire and the tools of rationality or were emphasized on sui generis rational instincts. Kant also approved the basic principles described by his predecessors that were an examination of the practical reasons which will disclose the obligation that the rational mediators must rely on to believe in instrumental principles (Guyer, 2006).
However, he said that a non-instrumental principle called CI should be complied with to grasp the moral requirements there in, and should be visible to basic rational agency. The argument was based in the premise that outstanding doctrine must be considered as sovereign and self regulating, or free from the restrictions of self-sufficient will. Therefore, in Kant’s moral philosophy, the idea was to conceal the reason which outreaches the practical reasons that go beyond the Human ‘slave’ to his desires. Additionally, a self regulating reason in the life of every person could be based on the crucial grounds for reviewing the worthiness of equal respect and also equal importance. The most significant of Kant’s positions are compiled in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’ which was later just called as ‘Groundwork’ but was a much more enriched and developed version (Wood, 2005). Later books such as ‘The Metaphysics of Morals’, ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ and many others were based on the principles of Groundwork, but in recent years many scholars have not been happy with the findings of Kant which will be described later in this text. Kant maintained a deontological view, one where individuals should be considered an end, rather than a means to an end. Kant believed that a legitimate act, one that is good, must meet with ethical imperatives to justify it. Thus, the highest good is to act from duty. Kant rejected a measure of conducting goodwill toward others when the motivation behind that act did not stem from moral constructs of legitimate and ethical principles. When an act is motivated by self-gain, regardless of the contribution to serving humankind, it is not justified morally by universal values (Guyer, 2006). The doctrine of responsibility of Kant began with the following perspectives: If the aim of aim was to get happiness, then all we will ask for will be gratification and pleasure and optimism that would lead our way to ultimate happiness. But, happiness is not in our control to accomplish, and happiness is basically a chance of luck. Furthermore, if we want to eschew skepticism and nihilism, and our ethics tell us to work that Kant believes that ethics must be universal, appropriate for all human race, and unconditional, which means no exceptions allowed (Wood, 2005). II. Opponents of Kant Philosophy The opponents of Kant’s Philosophy are many and are divided into three categories. The first and most important ones are the Ethical Relativists- who belief that there is no reason or logic that could be established for moral principles and universal ethics. These critics support the possibility that as Kant states virtue results from a realistic reasoning, it should not be the case. Schopenhauer and others believe that virtue has nothing in relation to rational life and on the contrary it can be based on emotions as the Machiavellian rational expediency believes in. (Janaway, 1999). The Utilitarianists are the people who consider providing utility as their first priority for the masses with little stress on the means to accomplish it. Kant began with the abstract concepts that in an attempt to know the real insights, he began from the abstract judgment