Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. He was a professor of philosophy at Konigsberg, in Prussia, researching, lecturing and writing on philosophy during and at the end of the 18th Century Enlightenment. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him.

This essay will attempt to explain what Kant means by Maxim and Universal Law, and whether his argument is affordable in the 21st century. Of course philosophers are different in their clarifications to their argument and there are not clear way in finding accurate and clear conclusions to their arguments.

First of all, we need to understand the Formula of the Universal Law, Kant argue the formulation as "act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law." So, everyone should live the same lives of other; moreover the person in the North, East, South and West should live the same lives. This makes me consider the “Should people be treated equality?” in Kant era that didn’t happen then will that be possible in the 21st century? I don’t think so and I accept as true that will never happen in the way that Kant hoped for.

Lets try to explain Kant promise-breaking example in a simple and in a different example as possible, Kant states somewhat resembling the following. Suppose that Mr X trying to decide whether or not to do a specific act, consequently Y, need to go over the subsequent steps: which is the ‘Formulate the maxim of the action’ which says out what common principle you would be acting on uncertainty you be located on the way to make the act. The m...

... middle of paper ...

...ure, with the notion of 'the moral point of view', an impartial interpretation of the rightness of one's actions. 'Ethics' refers to the former; 'morality' to the latter.

A categorical imperative that specifies that a maxim is just only if all could will that it should be adhered to by everyone in comparable situations first signals a break with the egocentric character of the golden rule "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you". Everyone must be able to will that the maxims of our action should become a universal law. Only a maxim that can be generalized from the perspective of all affected counts as a norm that can command general assent and to that extent is worthy of recognition or, in other words, is morally binding. The question" What should I do?" is answered morally with reference to what one ought to do (Caae.phil.cmu.edu, 2002).