In stating about this problem, Russ Shafer-Landau argues that various moral principles tend to be effectively independently to how an individual perceives them.
Kant’s moral theory is slightly different especially how people perceive it. In defining moral dilemmas, the Kant moral theory is seen as deontological whereby a person’s actions are morally upright in terms of virtues of individual’s motives. In this case, they must derive from a certain duty than inclination (Timmons 27). The determination to act according to his/her duty mostly overcomes the self-interest evidence or the desire to do otherwise. Moreover, Kant argues the aspect of moral values of an individual’s actions with the fact that they only reside in maxim or formal principle. Alternatively, it explains about the general commitment of a person to engage in a certain act because it is his/her duty to do so (Timmons 35). This therefore means that, duty remains the necessity for a person to act out of vengeance for the law. Rigorous application of similar methods towards this reasoning would result in an equal success while dealing with moral philosophy problems. This therefore means that the eventual principle of morality must always be a moral law that happens abstractly and has the ability of guiding an individual towards a right action.
In as much as the Kant’s theory seems effective and applies to real life events, this theory of ethics has its own flaws and ineffectiveness when used literary (Timmons 32). Generally, the theory fails to tell people what they should do especially when their moral responsibilities are conflicting. Kant’s theory of ethics is entirely general especially on some of the common happening in terms of moral ethics and dilemmas. However, the theory is not detailed and effective enough to guide people on how to