On the other hand, insofar as we act autonomously according to law we give ourselves. We do something for its own sake as an end in itself. When we act autonomously, we cease to be instruments to purposes given outside us. We become what capacity to act freely.

What Kant tells us gives human life its special dignity. Respecting human’s dignity means, regarding persons, not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. And this is why it’s wrong to use people for the sake of other people’s well-being or happiness. This is the real reason Kant says that utilitarianism goes wrong. This is the reason it’s important to respect the dignity of person’s and to uphold their rights.

John Stuart said, in the long run, if we uphold justice and respect the dignity of person, we will maximize human happiness.

What would Kant’s answer to that? Even if that were true, even if the calculus worked out that way, even if you shouldn’t throw the Christians to the lions, because in the long run, fear will spread, the overall utility will decline, the utilitarian would be upholding justice and rights, and respect for person, for the wrong reason, for a purely contingent reason, for an instrumental reason. It would still be using people even where the calculus works out for the best in the long run, it was still using people as means rather than respecting them as ends in themselves. So that’s Kant’s idea of freedom as autonomy and you can begin to see how it’s connected to his idea of morality.

But we still have to answer one more question. What gives an act its moral worth in the first place? If it can’t be directed at utility or satisfying wants or desires, what do you think gives an action its moral worth? This leads us from Kant’s demanding idea of freedom to his demanding idea of morality. What does Kant say? What makes an action morally worthy consists not in the consequences or in the results that flow from it. What makes an action morally worthy has to do with the motive with the quality of the will with the intension for which the act is done?

What matters is the motive. And the motive must be of a certain kind. So the moral worth of an action depends on the motive for which it’s done. And the important thing is that the person does the right thing for the right reason. “A good will isn’t good because of what is affects or accomplishes”, Kant write, “It’s good in itself. Even if by utmost effort the good will accomplished nothing it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself”.

And so for any action to be morally good, it’s not enough that it should conform to the moral law. It must also be done for the sake of the moral law. The idea is that the motive confers the moral worth on an action. And the only kind of motive of duty. Well what’s the opposite of doing something out of a sense of duty because it’s right? For Kant, the opposite would be all of those motives having to do with our inclinations. And inclinations refer to all of our desires, all of our contingently given, wants, preferences, impulses and the like. Only actions done for the sake of the moral law, for the sake of duty. Only these actions have moral worth.