If he Kant do it no one can

Kant was of the opinion that things which make people happy and satisfy do not have to be "good" acts, and that the most "evil" things can bring people happiness. This reigns true throughout modern society as people commit heinous crime - not knowing why - but they know that a particular "evil" act makes them happy. But the argument goes much deeper than that as society itself manipulates concepts of "good and "evil", and to go further more, it could be argued that morals change across the globe i.e. in the media at the moment there are many reports of so-called "Honour Killings" in countries such as Turkey, where some feel it is right to kill woman who they believe have brought shame upon the family. Paradoxically, if such events were to occur in the UK there were be major uproar and answers would be demanded.

Furthermore, he argues that characteristics which are usually perceived as positive traits such as intelligence and courage can all be used for "evil" and are thus evil. This can be seen in any war throughout the ages, as to achieve a goal which a particular nation sees as essential for their own survival, people from opposing nations must be killed thus this act of courage is inherently evil.

Kant employed the word "good" to represent "good will" and duty, and he was adamant that by using reason one would discover their duty and then "good will". I divulge in opinion here, and I would have to agree with the likes of Hume on this topic. Hume's philosophy was that morality was more felt than judged with any kind of reason. For Hume, morality is a matter of feelings and impulses of sympathy, which are carried out by rules.

Kant differed a lot from other philosophers in that he believed that there had to be an afterlife because without an afterlife there would be no point in any morality. He was of the opinion that if everything was predetermined in life than morality would have no place in any society. I cannot fully agree with him here as although I am no religious man I do feel that life is definitely not predetermined, however I can agree that in a hypothetical world of predetermined activity, that morality holds no weight.

Despite Kant's estranged views on good and evil, to say he was in anyway a nihilist, or indeed an anarchist, would be entirely incorrect. He was of the opinion that humans must live by laws to give any action that anyone acts out a sense of worth in the world. He agreed in a society where laws and rules can be applied prior to one's own existence. Conversely, just when I thought I could agree with Kant he had to stray with MY "moral" beliefs; Kant said that rational people create the laws that they live by. I feel that this can be interpreted in two ways: firstly he is implying that ratioanlity is the way to live, as if one is rational then the right way to live will surely follow, which is a positive way to live. However, to me it feels like if everyone saw themselves as rational and made their own laws then a common morality cannot exist as everyone's morals would vary astronomically.