In this essay I will explain Kant's reasoning behind his statement that the only true good, without qualification, is the good will, and consequentially determine whether his idea of good varies from the Platonic ideal of goodness. In Kant's development of his theory he relied upon the faculty of human reason to demonstrate his hypotheses. He begins by inquiring as to the ultimate purpose of human reason. He considers for a moment that man's reason exists to bring happiness, however he quickly nullifies this assumption with a common sense judgment: We find that the more cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment. .
In his essay writing “What is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” (Kant, 1). In order for us to completely understand this definition, we must first understand what Kant meant by “Immaturity”. In the writing Kant defines immaturity as “the inability to use one’s understanding without the guidance from another”(Kant, 1). Furthermore, Kant believes that this immaturity is self-imposed, and that it is the individual’s fault for lacking the courage and resolve to think for themselves, but instead pay others to think and understand for them. I substantially agree with this idea, however, his remarks on immaturity in relation to the government, the way people should live, and religion is quite impetuous and irrational.
What the revolutionary achievements of Descartes, Kant, and Fichte have generically in common is to account for the legitimacy of our knowledge claims or, in other words, for the possibility of autonomy. The business of that kind of philosophy is to rationally reconstruct the rightness of judging. For that design the architecture of those authors' theorizing is necessarily opposed to normal experience. (First of all, the common notion of "things affecting us" has to be abandoned.) Transcendental arguments are therefore all but common sense.
But even so, the preeminent role granted to the self/ego within the domain of aesthetic and teleological reflections provides an important orientation. For this reason, Hegel’s critique of the transcendental idealism does not aim the subject itself, but only the relationship it maintains with its object. When he accuses Kant’s philosophy of subjectivism, Hegel does not seek a reduction of the knowing subject. He denounces, on the contrary, the erroneous manner in which the reality is subjected to the faculty of understanding. It is worth to insist on this topic in order to clarify the dialectical meaning of the subjective
In answering, he makes a distinction between prudence and duty, saying that although it may be prudent to make a false promise because of the tangible benefit it provides to the person making the promise, it is not in accordance with duty. Kant details how a universal law of this nature would conflict with the Categorical Imperative by saying that “I immediately become aware that I can indeed will the lie but can not at all will a universal law to lie. For by such a law there would really be no promises at all… Therefore, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself…”(15). Again, Kant’s theory seems to be distinct from utilitarianism because it concerns the logical possibility of a maxim being made universal, rather than the outcome of an
“Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples. Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions.
Given this assumption, his argument is brilliantly made. However, he has no real basis for this argument. Kant even admits the limit of his assumption. Reason would overstep all its limits if... ... middle of paper ... ...y can only be based on human action. It is important to understand why humans regard things as moral and Hume does an excellent job of explaining this based on observable human characteristics.
If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008). The intelligence and other talents of the mind are... ... middle of paper ... ...ecision making process that takes place when ethical dilemmas arise, but that it also seems refreshing as it takes us back to a time when society knew right from wrong and chose right. However, we also feel that beings capable of reason do not, as a whole, follow inherent duties.
Although both are valid points of view, Nietzsche’s argument appears to hold more weight insofar as it seems to solve the debate between rhetoric and truth by eliminating absolute truth altogether. To begin, Plato’s view of rhetoric stems from his theory of the nature of reality known as Platonic realism. He argues that there are true forms of ideas that exist in a higher realm of being and thought. Essentially, there is a perfect template for every idea in the universe, including such concepts as good, justice and knowledge. These templates are the true abstract qualities of these ideas that individuals of the material realm cannot directly perceive with the senses, and so everything that exists within the worldly realm is actually a flawed copy or reflection of those perfect ideals, or absolutes.
The former represented the practical necessity of a possible action as means for attaining something else that one wants (or possibly want). The categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as necessary in itself, without reference to another end” (Kant 228). By saying these, Kant tells us... ... middle of paper ... ... unreasonable. While the motivation is a combination of actor's will, hobby, interest, emotion, faith and ideal. In Grounding for the metaphysics of morals, Kant thinks the motivations of hobby and interest are stem from anticipation to the achievement without any motivation of obligation, where only will and faith left.