l law. (421) When taking in account universal law Kant believes when a person acts they should always stop and think before they do anything, because with whatever action they may take, should they will that to the general public? For example, in a little city in Egypt called Al-Kosheh where numerous Coptic Christians were wounded and twenty were killed, all because the muslims were lead to believe that a Coptic Christian was thought to be poisoning their water. Because of this rumor the government decided to take it in their own hands and ran a massacre through the city. Some people may ask why did the government do that, and all I say in response is because they can. However if Egypt was to take in account the first rule of the categorical imperative, could the government indeed abuse people because of their belief? Kant, says no if the government is allowed to commit crimes towards other religions, and then if the tables were turned how would it feel if that was done to the government? Could the government will their actions as a universal law? I think in a Kantian perspective the government has rules and regulations that the citizens have to abide by, but in Egypts case there are more opportunities for muslims than Christians with the type of government that Egypt has. However in the individual perspective muslims should not take advantage of laws given to them in a negative aspect, because if they were to generalize their actions they would be considered unfair. Which now brings us to Kants perception of moral law and duty. Kant explains duty as an estimation of a worth that far outweighs any worth of what is recommended by inclination, and that the necessity of acting from pure respect for the practical law is what constitutes duty, to which every other motive must give way because duty is a condition of a will good in itself, whose worth is above all else. (403)...
