In this paper, I plan to discuss what can account for moral goodness according to the Natural Law Theory, and the modern philosopher Immanuel Kant. Each has different views on how to judge whether a person is morally good. Each has their own standards of measurement, which will be explained throughout this paper. I will also discuss objections that can be made against the two theories. I will base this on an article I once …showed first 75 words of 1645 total…

…showed last 75 words of 1645 total…be beneficent, but it does not follow that they should be beneficent. Facts and values are two different things. In comparison, Kant makes a very logical connection between rules and morality, Morality exists when it arises from a universalizable maxim, set of rules and facts based on knowledge, which can be applied universally. The only thing Kant does not account for are emotions, and they do a play a role in lives of human beings.