Final answer:
Kant's ethical theory asserts that a good will is determined by acting out of duty, guided by the Categorical Imperative to act as one would want all others to act. The motives behind actions are more significant than the consequences. In the context of stealing medicine to save a life, Kant's focus on duty over outcome would likely lead him to view the act of stealing as morally impermissible despite the noble intention.
Step-by-step explanation:
Kant believes that the moral goodness of an action is determined by whether it is performed out of duty and not for the sake of achieving a particular outcome. This emphasis on motive over consequences underlies his conception of a good will. According to him, a good will is good in itself, regardless of what it achieves, because it represents a decision to act out of moral duty.
A key component of Kant's ethical theory is the Categorical Imperative, which implies that one should act only according to maxims that one would wish to see as universal laws. It is a duty to act in a way that would be acceptable for all rational beings to act, in similar circumstances. Therefore, when assessing the will behind an action, we must consider whether it adheres to this principle and not whether the action leads to beneficial outcomes.
When addressing the scenario of someone who steals medicine to save a life, Kant would likely focus on the intention behind the act. While the act of stealing typically violates the Categorical Imperative, as one could not will theft to be a universal law, the intention to save a life could be seen as part of another moral duty - to preserve life. The complexity arises in reconciling the violation of one duty (against theft) with the adherence to another (saving a life). Kant's strict deontological perspective, however, may lead him to maintain that the act of stealing itself cannot be condoned, even with the goal to save a life.