Kant is very hard to read, at least for me, however when reading him you discover a first rate mind, that looks very deeply into the human condition. In this book Kant looks for ground to build a system of moral and ethics on. While it has flaws, for its time his conclusions are breath taking. ( )

I don't know--this just doesn't come together for me. Kant tries to develop a consistent system of morals in light of reason and will. He starts off though (p143) with "We assume, as a fundamental principle, that no organ for any purpose will be found in the physical constitution of an organized being, except one which is also the fittest and best adapted for that purpose." He is speaking about reason and will as much as any other organ. Another odd tautology: "Innocence is indeed a glorious thing, only it is a pity that it cannot maintain itself well and is easily seduced." He defines God (ok, so here is why the die-hard intellectuals like him) as "the idea of moral perfection." He does have a nugget of truth in his footnotes about why moral teachings fail -- because the teacher does usually not have a consistent grounding of their own and thus fails to present a coherent picture by example. He describes happiness as the one common end and a duty of practical reason. Ends are valued over means and the "one categorical imperative" is "Act only on a maxim by which you can will that it, at the same time, should become a general law." His conclusion of a few paragraphs does summarize everything and is perhaps the first clearly conveyed information. However, much of his work is an attack on straightforward reason. ( )

Kant is heavy, dense philosophy. Even the groundwork---not the FULL metaphysics of morals, is extremely dense. That said, it is well worth it. The first book is fairly straight forward, but the second book can become more vague. His argument can fall apart for some people, but Kant is theoretical and not concerned with practical application. Read this as such; this is not like John Mill's utilitarianism. ( )

To read Kant is to become acquainted with what it means to take thought seriously. Today it is not uncommon to set up a straw Kant in Phil 101 classes, using either this text or the "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics," to depict Kant as an incorrigible rationalist reductionist. Still, if you want to read Kant without slogging through the three Critiques, read "Prolegomena," the "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," and the "Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime;" you’ll discover a thinker with, yes, tremendous intellect, but more importantly, the integrity of genius; and moreover, one who could also be considered (especially in the "Remarks") a fine stylist. Modern thought remains emphatically post-Kantian: even when it rejects his premises or his conclusions, it is still Kant's project to which it reacts. More than any text I know except Wittgenstein's Tractatus, these works by Kant exhibit the absolute rigor and confidence of hard thinking. Reading them slowly, one almost recaptures the sense that, if the difficulties are simply thought through to the end, even the most immovable problems will yield to the irresistible force of the mind. What Kant and Wittgenstein share is a surprising way of drawing limits to thinking in a way that is meant, ultimately, to empower thought. Kant sought to make clear the power and the limits of human reason in such a way as to encourage, rather than undermine, confidence in it. The mind may have limits, but for Kant, as for Socrates, everything is gained in *knowing* those limits. His ethics--the real pinnacle of his work--demonstrate that definite, positive conclusions for action and conduct could follow from such a delimiting. Seen in this way, his thought is a breathtaking synthesis of audacity and humility, and remains as pertinent as it ever was; not because it's incontestable, or even merely right, but because it engages questions most worth contesting, and does so with courage, consistency, and a real capacity for awe. ( )

Kant’s discussion surrounding his Categorical Imperative--”Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”’--is among the most overrated bits of philosophical argument in the entire history of thought. Kant never gives a valid argument for the Imperative, nor does he adequately explain how one formulation of the Imperative relates to other offered formulations or to principles allegedly derived from these formulations--i.e. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity . . . never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Yet hundreds of books have been written on it and the Groundwork is assigned reading in most introductory Ethics classes. Why? Let me offer two reasons: First, the Imperative SOUNDS good--with just the right mixture of common sense, Judeo-Christian morality, philosophical profundity, and, yes, a touch of mystery. Never mind that it isn’t really clear exactly what is meant or why we should accept it as true; But, second, these deficiencies have been turned into positives in the sense that an unclear and unargued for principle put forward by a “great” philosopher provides room for an almost infinite number of arguments and theses for what the philosopher “really” meant or how the principle or the argument for it can be “saved.” Now, of course, Kant does have many interesting and useful things to say about ethical theory--in this work and elsewhere--and, I will not begrudge him the title of “great” (though Hume, among others, is in my view, the superior thinker). But the twin aims of analytic philosophy--clear thinking and logical argument--would be better served if we treated Kant’s Groundwork with far less reverence. ( )