PART II: KANT vs MILL - Kant Continued
A moral action, for Kant, is done not for the consequences but because it is the right thing to do. We act out of a sense of duty in respect for the moral law that we ourselves can accept or reject as an aspect of our rationality. There is much that is that is reflective of common sense in Kant's position. If your intentions were good (a contradictory aspect as part of the empirical realm?), then it doesn't really matter that you were unable to bring about what you were seeking; you still did the right thing. A person's moral worth is measured by his or her's good will. The categorical imperative is reflective of the golden rule, again a common sense aspect of his position. Isn't doing onto to others as you would have them do unto you like the golden rule? The notions or rationality, consistency and equal treatment all come into play.
It is beyond the limits of this introductory lecture to go much further into Kant's deontological, duty-oriented ethical theory. It has its strengths and weaknesses. A strength is that acting out of moral duty and respect for the moral law can be seen to be different from somebody acting out some desire to enhance their ego or simply without any recognition of what one is doing. For example, two soldier's acts of bravery may be viewed externally as equivalent acts of bravery, but soldier X did it out of a sense of duty while soldier Y did it for the need to be recognized and rewarded (or was completely "out of his mind" when he did the act). From a utilitarian point of view, both actions are meritorious. From a Kantian point of view, only soldier X's action was courageous.