Let's start with a story.The classic trolley car problem.You are the driver of a trolley car there are five workers on the track.Your break is broken.You know that if you crash into these five workers they will all die.Until you notice there is after the right a side track with one worker on it.So do you choose to turn or go straight?

The majority decision is to turn，The main reason is because it can't be right to kill five person instead of one.

So what if we change the question to you are the onlooker on the bridge there's a fat man leaning over the bridge beside you.If you give him a push, he would land in front of the five workers,He would die stop the trolley car but he would save the five workers.

So do you choose to shove or do nothing?

Most of the people choose to do nothing.But if you shove the fat man then you are killing one instead of killing five，So that means the reason for the first questions answers is wrong.

The reason to do nothing is because it is not right to involve someone in the case that they should be in.But when you think about it the five workers also shouldn be in this case as well.These five Workers didn't n have the thought to sacrifice their lives any more than the fat man did，So why do you choose to kill five person instead of killing one?

Some people might say it's because of the pushing，That they just can't put so much energy in a murder.But what if the fat man is standing on a trap door and you can just push a button to let him fall on the track?Most of the people still choose to do nothing.

There is no right or wrong in the choices we make in this kind of murder.This is the moral side of the murder.And we can see from the choices that people make ，what their moral states are.

First we have the consequential standpoint.The right and the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action.

But in some other cases, we gesture towards the other categorical state， which means hesitating to push the fat man.This is known as utilitarianism,we just think that it is wrong morally wrong to kill a person.We gesture towards the reasons having to do with the act itself.

In this speech I want to argue，technicaly speaking,with Imanual Kunt's thoughts about utilitarianism,and the thoughts and debates he published and described his life,especially from the book "critique of pure reason".

Kant Rejects utilitarianism strongly, though he did admit that the utilitarians were half right.Utilitarians believes Humans are only and strictly,on pleasure and pain,and to judge something is right or wrong morally，is by comparing. Is the pleasure is bigger than the pain or not?

Kant thinks:"of course, we seek to avoid pain and we do like pleasure." But he refuses the point that Bentham had made:Pain and pleasure are humans masters.

So why does Kant rejects the principle of morality that lots of the people believe?

Kant thinks that every individual person had a certain dignity that command our respect，that is because we are rational beings，which means we are beings who are capable of reason We are not only capable of reason，but also autonomous.We are being capable of acting and choosing freely.

By the way these two are not the only two capacities we have.Their are suffering, pain, satisfaction and pleasure ...

Kant says: it's our rational capacity that makes us distinctive from anybody else and above mere animals，making us something more than just physical creatures.

So let's start with one of the capacity:freedom.

What is actual freedom? Most of the people often think of freedom as simply consisting in doing what they want,there's no obstacles between them and the point that they want to get.

But this isn't Kant's idea of freedom.He has a very demanding but persuasive notion，saying that when we ,like animals, seek for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, we are not really acting of freedom，Instead, we are really acting as the slaves of those appetites and impulses.

Humans didn't choose a particular appetite and desire， so when we act to satisfy it, we are just acting according to natural necessity.And for Kant, freedom is the opposite of necessity.

To act freely is to act autonomously.Meaning to act according to a law that I give myself， not according to the physical laws of nature.

So the opposite of autonomy for Kant，is heteronomy,this word was invented by him.This means to act according to desires I have'nt chosen myself.

So what's Kant's theory for morality?We know that Kant's opinion is to act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end, is to choose the end itself for its own sake,this I learned from researching.This is something only humans can do.So when we act to pursue pleasure we act as means to the realization of ends given outside us.

For me, it seems like we are instruments rather than owners.

So when we act anonymously,We act according to a law we give ourselves，So this thing we doing has its own sake as an end in itself,Simply speaking, we can come to think of ourselves as ends in ourselves.

So this is one of the capacity that human have，This is what makes humans different from animals，Also its meaning that respecting human dignity means rewarding persons as ends in themselves,And that is the reason that the utilitarianism goes wrong.Also the reason why it's important to respect the dignity of other people，and to hold up everybody's rights, including ourselves.

Even if we calculate the exact number of pleasure and pain，Using comparison to choose Cases，The utilitarian would be upholding justice and rights for people,but for the wrong reason.Because it's purely contigent,This point of view does not respect people as their ends,No matter if the calculated number was right or wrong or even works out for the best in the long run，It will still be unright morally.

So this connected to his idea of morality.This one is simple to understand.i quote: that is what makes an action morally worthy consist not in the consequences not in the results that flow from it. the thing that makes an action morally worthy has to do with the motive.It has to do with the quality of the will,the good or bad in the intentions,Also it must be done for the sake of the moral law.

Finally I will end with this quote from In manual Kant:

A goodwill isn't good because of what it affect or accomplishes,it's good in itself. even if by utmost effort the goodwill accomplishes nothing it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its fall all value in itself.

I figure that this point of view was very alike to 王阳明先生的致良知学问。For me，discovering knowledge and learning reason,Is to awaken the restlessness of moral and reason and to see where it might lead，but the road will never end.