Kent believed that moral values are absolute and lying is always wrong, not because of theological considerations but because reason demands it. He believed morals are categorical. Hypothetical Imperatives are simple because they cater our desires. We can renounce the force of the hypothetical imperative by simply renouncing our desire. On the other hand moral obligations need to be carried out regardless of personal wants and
desires. Kent explains the reason commands the “categorical ought”, the principle “categorical imperative” is based on reason and must be accepted by every reasonable and rational person. If a rule can achieve the status of a “maxim” as well as “universal law”, the act based up on it can be morally permissible.
Kent was against lying because he believed that lying cannot be
universalized bases on the example that a person might lie for his own personal
convenience and benefits but he would never prefer other to lie to him in any
situation. His contempories criticized the stubbornness of his ideas by giving
an argument against his idea about lying. His idea was challenged by putting
the scenario of necessity of lying to save someone’s life but Kent believed
that though we will be held responsible for the bad results of telling a lie
but we will not be morally responsible for the bad results of telling the truth
which seemed insensitive and unconvincing. The basic framework of Kentian set
of rules is based on rational constraints where we allow others to do what we
find fit to do ourselves.