Kant's deontological ethics focuses morality on objective duties rather than on the consequences of actions. Morality cannot be based on emotions since each person has a different reason for feeling certain emotions. For example, if what is moral is determined by happiness, then the thief seeks joy by stealing. Instead, Kant's ethics revolve around moral maxims and rules. Moral rules are universal commands that everyone must follow, such as “do not steal.” Maxims, on the other hand, are subjective rules that people have, such as “I will not steal.” Maxims may or may not coincide with moral rules. For example, a liar has the maxim "I will lie." Kant further expands his theory by listing two categorical imperatives, which are the formation of universal law and humanity as the final formulation. The formulation of universal law dictates that one must act as if one's maxims were to become moral rules. Humanity as a final formulation states that we must always treat other human beings as an end and never as a mere means. Making false promises is an example of treating the other as a mere means. Note, however, that this does not mean that one cannot use another as a means to an end, just as a student uses a teacher to obtain his or her education. The difference between the first and second example is the presence of consent and respect for the autonomy of the other. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay When you apply Kant's deontology to common moral scenarios, more often than not, you can get a clear picture of what is right and wrong. For example, it is a fundamental ethical principle that stealing is wrong and helping others is right. Stealing is wrong because it violates Kant's categorical imperative to never treat other human beings as mere means. Furthermore, stealing would not be in accordance with the universal law of nature because if theft became a moral rule, then personal effects or property would have no meaning. That said, the things that make an action right give you a reason to perform that action, and the things that make an action wrong prevent you from performing that action. Categorical imperatives motivate one to hold maxims that accord with universal rules because one should act the way one wants others to act towards other people. By respecting others, he maintains a sense of order as he encourages others to respect their peers. In this case it differs from the golden rule because one does not act in the interest of one's own well-being, but in the interest of the universe. On the other hand, one criticism of Kant's deontology is his perspective on animals. For Kant, animals are not included in his theory because they are not rational beings. Therefore we have no duties towards animals. This, however, can be problematic since, even putting animals aside, many humans suffer from mental illnesses that put them in a less than entirely rational position. For example, depression or anxiety can distort your senses causing you to think irrational things. If Kant's theory were applied, deontology would suggest that one has no duties even towards these fellow men, but it does not seem morally correct to despise them or treat them less than someone who has full rationality. One way in which deontology might save itself from this predicament would be to say that one has a duty to oneself to treat non-rational beings, both human and animal, appropriately. Kant's deontology offers us two categories of duties, perfect duties and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are performed at every moment of 107-18.