What is the matter with the following claim: the good is good because of what it does for you.
2. what is the matter with the following claim: "doing the right thing depends on what you are thinking when you do it."

3. what is the matter with the following claim: the good depends on the results of what you do.

when you think of the place of reason in ethics, is this utilitarian picture what you have in mind? are there any other ways that reason can function in ethical decisions?
it should be clear that utilitarianism focuses upon the ends, the goals of actions. there is no action that is wrong in and of itself. do you agree with this position? or do you believe that there are actions that, regardless of the beneficial consequences, ought not be done?
6. if achieving happiness is not the goal of moral behavior

what is?

he says it has no value if it is experienced as a result of wrongdoing
- but says that good will is the only thing that is valuable

how would you characterize kant's view of the nature of moral "reason"?

it isn't utilitarian. it isn't "means/end" evaluation. how can it settle moral disputes?

what are kant's objections to taking the consequences of actions as being of "moral worth"? can you find textual support in kant's reading at the end of the chapter?

how do you think kant would evaluate laissez-faire or free-market capitalism as a form of economy? would he approve, disapprove?