st, the maxim on which it is basedalways do everything possible to preserve lifecan be universalized because people should always try to preserve life. Secondly it freely accepts its duty in that when acting upon its maxim I can at the same time will that it become a universal law. (Kant, pp.79) Finally, it treats people as ends, not means because the means is me performing the act and the end is the persons life being saved. This is an example of a moral dilemma in which there is more than one good action to be performed.In conclusion, I do not believe that President Clinton made the right judgment when he decided to reject Iraqs offer of peace to the U.N. His decision defies the theory of Kant in that it does not meet all the conditions of good will and as a consequence cannot be considered the right action. Nietzsches theory supports President Clinton in his decision on the basis of him being President and therefore master which gives him the right to create values. (Nietzsche, pp.100) But despite Nietzsches views, if put in the exact same situation, I would not make the same decision as President Clinton because I feel that the reasoning for his decision is defective in its use of logic and in which case is unsatisfactory. Although I do believe that there can be more than one good action to be performed in any given situation, Clintons decision to reject peace is definitely not of the good actions....
