5. Therefore, it can be perfectly rational for people to violate their moral duty. Kant’s Response to the Amoralist’s Challenge: The Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality 1. If you are rational, then you are consistent. 2. If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability. 3. If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally. 4. Therefore, if you are rational, then you act morally. 5. Therefore, if you act immorally, then you are irrational. It is rational to act morally but what of motivation to do so? Are the only reasons for behavior/action personal benefit and desire? People can commit to doing what is moral regardless of benefit or desire. This is what Kant referred to as a good will. Hume’s Motivational Argument 1. Moral judgments are able, all by themselves, to motivate those who make them. 2. Beliefs are never able, all by themselves, to motivate those who hold them. 3. Therefore, moral judgments are not beliefs. 4. If moral judgments are not beliefs, then they cannot be true. 5. Therefore, moral judgments cannot be true.