In the 18th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that the consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant because an agent is accountable only for affairs which are under his or her control. This implies that only the intent of an agent's action is morally relevant. I advocate that justice can be served to morality, even if the consequences of an action are dismissed. In "Foundation for the Metaphysic of Morals," Kant says that "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will" (873). This statement claims that something good must be sought after totally independent of serving as a means to something else. A good will is not good because of what it achieves or causes (872). It is "good in-itself." If I bake John a cake out of generosity and it makes him fat, that does not mean my original will was bad. Furthermore, if I have the desire to bake him a cake, but no means to do so, my intentions were not wrong despite the consequence of not producing a cake. The good intent determined the morality of the action and not the result.
In his essay, Kant further argues that one's will is only good if someone is motivated by duty and nothing else (874). The will is not good if it is motivated by any human inclination or desire. The Provo Bakery may choose to charge reasonable prices for their doughnuts because it is the dutiful thing to do. If these prices are only reasonable so that their customers do not go elsewhere, then the intent of this action was not moral. The consequence of these prices was a happy customer, but the will was personal gain. Kant asserts that one's will must only act upon the "universal law," which is void of human feeling and emotion. This is best seen by the Categorical Imperative (CI). The CI applies to all without exception. Kant's first formulation states that you should "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law" (886).
