Changes
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).
Since considerations of the [[physical]] details of actions are necessarily bound up with a person's subjective preferences, and could have been brought [[about]] without the action of a rational will, Kant concluded that the expected [[consequentialism|consequences]] of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only [[objective]] basis for moral [[value]] would be the [[rationality]] of the Good Will, expressed in [[recognition]] of moral [[duty]].
Duty is the [[necessity]] to act out of reverence for the law set by the categorical imperative. Because the consequences of an act are not the source of its moral worth, the source must be the [[maxim_(philosophy)|''maxim'']] under which [[The Act|the act ]] is performed, irrespective of all aspects or faculties of [[desire]]. Thus, an act can have moral [[content]] if, and only if, it is carried out solely with [[regard]] to a [[sense]] of moral duty; it is not enough that the act be consistent with duty, but carried out to achieve some particular interest.
==The first formulation==
===Theft===
Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she ''could not possibly'' consent is a violation of perfect duty [[interpreted]] through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing [[victim]], it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had [[The Thief|the thief ]] simply asked. However, no person can consent to theft, because the [[presence]] of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft. Since the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty.
===Suicide===
