essay on "Why should we be moral?" - critique needed

[thatguy]

Our teacher assigned us an essay that I think has been assigned to other ToK classes before. It's the one that says 'Do questions like “why should we be moral?” or “why shouldn’t I be selfish?” have answers like some questions in other areas of knowledge? Does having a definite answer make a question more or less important?'

He probably changed the wording a bit, but there it is anyway. It's the same word count as the ToK paper and so far I'm at about 1100 words. I mainly need some critique. For brevity, I'll just outline the general essay format and content.

I started it by explaining how I generally align myself with Kant's categorical imperative and explained why. Then i said the problems with this dogma (that reason would say to be immoral as an individual) and talked about controversy concerning what is considered moral. By doing this I said that I don't think there is a definite answer to the question, though not every ethics question is like that (murder is wrong). Then I talked about how in math, simple calculations always yield the same results (1+1=2). Then i said how in equations like y=7x+9, y's identity is dependent on what x equals. And then i pointed out how x/0 is undefined. By doing this, I said that other AoK have answers much like the morality question, but not every answer is like that.

So then I talked about how having a definite answer could make it more important or less important, it depends on the situation. I justified this by talking about how if we already know the earth is a planet, it's a bit silly to ask if it is. And if there is no definite answer, it's futile to ask the question. but then it could be a definite answer that we don't already know the answer ourselves, but the answer can be found. and in the case of abortion, it could have severe consequences regardless of whether it is considered moral or immoral.

Does this sound like it would be okay? Do i need to address emotion's role in justifying morals or is reason enough? if i answer "it depends" for the second part of the question, do i need to talk about people who argue "yes always" and "no, never" too? any other help is accepted as well... i just don't particularly want to have to start over if i don't have to. oh and we've only been in ToK for about 2 months now so we haven't learned too much beyond the ways of knowing.