It is often a question of whether or not there can be exceptions to universal moral laws. In Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant stated that moral claims should be free from circumstantial consideration, however each of the maxims that he presents (p.30; 422-424) seems to cause arguments over the possible exceptions to the moral rules. It seems reasonable that his moral law to never lie should be universally applicable. However I intend to show even this principle has at least one morally permissible exception and how this exception shows the contradiction that Kant himself makes with his moral theory.
Immanuel Kant based his ethical inquiry on the notion that in order for moral considerations to be a priori or "pure", they must be undertaken for the sake of duty alone. (p.10; 398.6-7) This means that the motives of the moral agent must be without any outside inclination other than because it is that person's duty as a rational moral agent to perform a certain action. An action is not judged because of the purpose it was meant to achieve, but rather because the maxim, or moral principle serves as the motivation. Hence, Kant's Categorical Imperative (CI) commands that an action is necessary in and of itself (p.33; 425.12-15). .
Only moral principles that are intrinsically valid, i.e. good in and of itself, can conform to the requirements of universal validity. Kant is hoping to make a moral doctrine free from selfish motives. The definition of a selfish motive for the purposes of this paper is as follows: any action taken with consideration of personal feelings or personal relations. In order for an action to be taken from duty alone, there cannot be any residual feelings after the task is undertaken; there cannot be any inclination about oneself or another person's possible circumstance or the emotional outcome that could possibly take place. Therefore, the point of morality is strictly from a rational stance to be moral.
