Ethics Class Homework Assignments: Critiques, Thoughts... Thanks!

[Mudhammam]

If you are not going to read Kant yet, you might want to look at a summary:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5

His idea of a "good will" is not consequentialist.  From the link above:

... Even happiness, according to Kant, is not unconditionally good. Although all humans universally desire to be happy, if someone is happy but does not deserve their happiness (because, for instance, their happiness results from stealing from the elderly), then it is not good for the person to be happy. Happiness is only good on the condition that the happiness is deserved.

Kant argues that there is only one thing that can be considered unconditionally good: a good will. A person has a good will insofar as they form their intentions on the basis of a self-conscious respect for the moral law, that is, for the rules regarding what a rational agent ought to do, one’s duty. The value of a good will lies in the principles on the basis of which it forms its intentions; it does not lie in the consequences of the actions that the intentions lead to. This is true even if a good will never leads to any desirable consequences at all: “Even if… this will should wholly lack the capacity to carry out its purpose… then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself” (4:393). This is in line with Kant’s emphasis on the unconditionalgoodness of a good will: if a will were evaluated in terms of its consequences, then the goodness of the will would depend on (that is, would be conditioned on) those consequences. (In this respect, Kant’s deontology is in stark opposition to consequentialist moral theories, which base their moral evaluations on the consequences of actions rather than the intentions behind them.)

Wikipedia also has articles on this, and, of course, there are other online articles elsewhere on Kant.

Also, Kant's basic idea of what is good is best represented by his ideas regarding his categorical imperative.  See link above.

I do not get the impression that you have the right ideas about what Kant is up to at all.  Of course, I have no idea what your teacher said in class, so it may well be that he did not satisfactorily explain Kant.

I think I get what Kant wants to say, but as I said, I don't think he avoids consequentialism at all. He requires it for determining what is good about his notion of good will. Where he differs from the consequentialists in vogue during his era is in his claim that something is good on the basis of intention, rather than the results that follow action.