Kant, in his reading, goes into detail about the importance of intentions. But, like utilitarianism, this theory supports only one way of talking about goodness. Utilitarianism believes only in consequences, while deontology finds emphasis only in intentions. Both theories are missing in this debate for me, as both consequences impact a person's intentions of goodness. In addition to forgetting the consequences, ethics also has other unforgivable flaws. Kant clearly states that one can only be a good person if one performs good deeds solely out of duty, and nothing else. I don't think this is true. Even though an individual may find happiness in doing a good deed, it does not mean that he or she is a bad person. In fact, I would say that finding happiness in a good deed would make a better person than if they did the action just out of duty and because they felt they had to. In addition to this imperfection of the theory, there are many others that demonstrate that deontology is seriously flawed and cannot be accepted