Kant wants to avoid the skeptical attack by excluding experience from his judgements. By doing so, he makes an attempt at evaluating moral acts in themselves (a priori), without any prior knowledge (a posteriori). This allowed him to avoid the empiricists of his time as they claimed that all of our knowledge, as well as our morality, stemmed from experience. His philosophical project was this: to find an a priori morality that did not rely on experience or prior knowledge, rather one that depended on the reasoning of a rational being and the value of its moral actions.
Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of actions. This formula is a two-part test. First, one creates a maxim and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would
will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions to this formula.
The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rational beings. The next logical step is then to apply the second stage of the test. The second requirement is that a rational being would will this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that the morally correct action is to tell the truth. To decide whether rational being would will a maxim to become a law, the maxim itself must be examined rationally and not its consequences.
I agree with the morality based on Kantian principles because it is strict in its application of moral conduct. Consequently there is no investigation into individual cases to determine whether an action is moral or not. An action is moral in itself not because of its consequences, but because any rational being wills it to be a universal law and it does not contradict itself. No one would argue that telling the truth is an immoral thing to do. If someone commits an immoral act as a consequence, that has no bearing on the morality of the original action in itself.
An immutable universal law binds Kantian philosophy. It agrees with my moral sensibilities to consider that actions are moral or immoral regardless of their immediate consequences. I am willing to accept that sometimes the moral action is harder to perform, but I am unwilling to accept that morality rests within the details of a situation and the possible consequences. This system of rating moral actions emphasizes the moral content of an action, rather than the moral value of an individual being as a whole, or even a race or nation of rational beings. Therefore, I consider Kant's Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative to be a good test of morality