Kant's Definition Of Ethics

I think that Kant’s views should be the basics of ethics. Based on the definition of ethics being universal, Kant’s views can be applied to everyone. It does not matter what a person’s ethnicity, nationality, religion, or time period he/she resides in, Kant’s views of a good will can be practiced by everyone. Rather than happiness, which is conditional and has consequences, the good will is good within itself. With the example of a pair of people shopping, person A tries on a variety of clothing. Person A asks person B if an outfit is flattering on him/her. If happiness was the base of ethics, person B may try to avoid making person A feel bad saying that an outfit looked bad if person A was happy about that outfit. Whereas based on the good
will, person B would bluntly tell the truth that the outfit looked bad on person A. Person B does not say this out of bad intentions, rather the good will comes with good intentions. The actions based off of the good will do not anticipate consequences, but is based on duty. Person B is not thinking about the consequences of what his/her answer will result in, rather person B is acting of the duty of telling person A if the outfit was flattering or not. I think sometimes, acting on one’s duty is more important that trying to save face or save someone’s feelings.
Many times it actually hurts people instead of bringing a person happiness when you try to save someone’s feelings. When you act based on good will, your actions are clear. With clear intentions, it can hurt less people rather than beating around the bush.I think that Kant’s views should be the basics of ethics. Based on the definition of ethics being universal, Kant’s views can be applied to everyone. It does not matter what a person’s ethnicity, nationality, religion, or time period he/she resides in, Kant’s views of a good will can be practiced by everyone. Rather than happiness, which is conditional and has consequences, the good will is good within itself. With the example of a pair of people shopping, person A tries on a variety of clothing. Person A asks person B if an outfit is flattering on him/her. If happiness was the base of ethics, person B may try to avoid making person A feel bad saying that an outfit looked bad if person A was happy about that outfit. Whereas based on the good will, person B would bluntly tell the truth that the outfit looked bad on person A. Person B does not say this out of bad intentions, rather the good will comes with good
intentions. The actions based off of the good will do not anticipate consequences, but is based on duty. Person B is not thinking about the consequences of what his/her answer will result in, rather person B is acting of the duty of telling person A if the outfit was flattering or not. I think sometimes, acting on one’s duty is more important that trying to save face or save someone’s feelings. Many times it actually hurts people instead of bringing a person happiness when you try to save someone’s feelings. When you act based on good will, your actions are clear. With clear intentions, it can hurt less people rather than beating around the bush.