Maxim of duty

It is interesting to think that someone, Immanuel Kant, come up with the idea of Maxim. Maxim seems to be the way to tell if what people did is what they should have done. Maxim is the principle upon one acts and has two parts to it. The subjective principle and objective principle determine if one’s acts are maxim. The subjective principle is the principle upon which we do act, in other words the act that people take in a situation. The objective principle, on the other hand, is the principle upon which we should act, what would be the right thing to do in a situation. For someone’s acts to be maxim the subjective must be that same as the object and it would be consisted morally rational. In the second law of duty, The Formal Principle of Duty, tells that the duty is for the moral worth not the outcome. So it only matters if a person’s acts are what ought to happen and that wherever duty calls people should answer. Maxim does seem understandable and is the right way to look at a situation, but why does not everyone do the duty that they ought to do in most cases? In many cases whenever there is a building burning or someone being robbed some people would stand by or think someone would come and do something about the situation. Those situations would not correspond with the concept of maxim; because it can be stated what acts should a person have taking, like called the police or eased the situation, instead decided to not take act upon the situation that is presented to a person. Maxim is a true principle in the sense that person should do what ought to have. Even though the situation could get worst or not go as expected, it is the act that is important. If the act is morally rational it is good and it should be done.