Immanuel Kant is considered to be a deontological moral philosopher. According to him, a person becomes a moral being if he performs the action from good will in a sense of duty. In this realm, the agent must follow the moral law or the categorical imperative. There is no fixed moral law but the agent has to transform his subjective maxim into the objective or formal maxim. This maxim in the sense of duty obligates the person to perform that action. Kant advocates that this is universally and objectively applicable for all rational beings and this is how all rational beings become moral beings. To perform the action, the agent is only guided by reason. And reason only can motivate the person to take the moral decision.

In Kantian ethics, emotion cannot motivate a person to take the moral decision as Kant thinks that there can be a conflict between grounds of obligation, but there should not be any conflict regarding the role of obligation. When a person takes the moral decision, he should be guided by reason alone and in this way, he will have reverence for the universal moral law.

As a human being, we are a combination of reason and emotion. We cannot just exclude emotion completely and act morally only by reason. My concern is the role of emotion in moral decision making.

My question is :

How does Kant fit emotion in his moral framework?

Does he completely exclude emotion in his moral system? or Does he think that in taking moral decisions, emotion does not have any motivational power?