Kant's Cateogorical Imperative

On Monday we talked about Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. This is comprised of three sub aspects. They focus around our acts and how to determine if it is a moral act or not. I agree with what Immanuel Kant presents in his categorical imperative, but I think that two of the three aspects are the most important. His first sub aspect of determining if an act is moral is the philosophy of our actions being able to be applied as a universal law if we are acting morally. This makes sense because if you are acting in such a way that is moral, then it is understood that others are able to act in that same way and be considered as acting morally also. I think this principle does away with being moral in certain circumstances. When it becomes a universal law then you cannot say that it is moral in one circumstance and not in another. The next aspect he says to consider when determining if an act is moral is treating humanity as ends in itself. This is important because I think when you begin to use people for your benefits solely, then you are not being moral. You are treating them as means and not ends. This takes away from their humanity and in a way treats them like property or objects. Lastly, he says that you should act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. I think this is the same as an action that can be universally applied to everyone. If you think about it, when you are acting in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law then you are acting like one of the members in the “kingdom of ends” that is giving the universal law.