This essay explains Immanuel Kant's Distinction Between acts that are right and acts that are morally worthy and supports his argument on the significance of motives and role of duty in morality. I do this by first stating why we should use a priori1 reasoning when deliberating if an act is morally right. Next I state how to apply reason to moral deliberation. This is done by examining formulations of the categorical imperative and using examples of the ?Universalizability' test. This gives me the groundwork from which to compare acts that are right and acts that are morally worthy. I do this through Kant's ?Shopkeeper'2 example. Once the distinction is clear I provide an argument for why a rationally guided will should motivate our actions, and why a person who acts out of duty not in accordance to duty is morally worthy.
Before I can explain the distinction between right and morally worthy I first explain how to decide if an act is morally right. Kant was a moral absolutist. This means he believed that actions are either morally right or morally wrong3, regardless of the context of the act. This also means that because it doesn't depend on who it is, when it is or where it is it can apply to everyone. According to Kant we should use a priori reason, which means it does not use empirical data to inform it, to determine if an intended action is morally right. This must be done because we all have different experiences, goals and desires, and if morals were based on them all concepts of morally right or wrong would be different. An example is saying that lying is morally wrong because your mother said so or because it hurts to be lied to, this also means that lying could be right if your mother said so or if you never experienced being lied to. Therefore to get mo ...