Kant believes that by nature, society will perfect itself over time and become more rational and free. Kant does not focus on the most primitive state of human nature, but rather the present state of society. In stark contrast to Rousseau, Kant encourages people to use their intended reasoning and believes that natural capacities of reasoning should be developed in all of mankind. Since nature “gave man reason and the freedom of will based on it”, she clearly wishes for man to utilize it. (Kant 31) Kant proposes the ridiculousness of being motivated by instinct or “provided for and instructed by ready-made knowledge” and urges man to discover everything on his own. This natural reasoning is what gives value and significance to the world, so …show more content…
He recognizes that man is unsociable in that he can detach from society, want things to go his way and resist along with expecting resistance. Without society, “the purpose behind man’s creation, his rational nature…would remain a void”. (Kant 32) Rousseau thinks man becomes proportionately as “sociable and a slave to others, he becomes weak, fearful, mean-spirited” and his softness “completes the enervation of his strength and of his courage”. (Rousseau 94) He also compares this socialization of human nature to the domestication of animals, which is a bit far-reaching. Society is a natural progression that enables humans to fulfill their ultimate potential, whereas domestication is unnatural and calculated by people of society for the purpose of enabling animals and man to coexist peacefully. Kant praises the degradation of nature and the “distasteful, competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and also to rule”, for without this, “humanity’s excellent natural capacities would have lain eternally dormant”. (Kant 32) Kant is not a Romanticist in that he values reason above sentiment, unlike Rousseau. Sentiments about the moral depravity of society are less important than the moral reasoning of humans to reach their potential and advance
In his book A Discourse on Inequality, Jean- Jacques Rousseau turns to the state of nature in search of the real “essence” of man. What made humans to be humans? Rousseau is trying to determine the prodigious events, such as the acquisition of knowledge and errors, the mutations that took place in the constitution of the body, and the constant impact of the passions that eventually led to the separation of man between the state of nature and society (67). He describes how as time change, humanity change as well. He figures that if by first looking into the origin of man, it can lead to the “source of inequality among men” and the unnatural ways man has evolved to become (67).
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
Kant view animals as “mere means” (Kant, 239) because he believes animals has no self consciousness and they cannot judge decisions by their interest. Animals cannot think rationally and logically in a same way as humans so he excluded animals from the moral community where we solely respect those who have rational autonomy and respect their rights. Kant classified human beings and animals differently. He believes that animals are viewed as values or price for human purpose use because animals only behave responding only to their inclination even though they are sentient, and their values are dependent on our human desire only.
...o be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority” or in the face of governmental tyranny. However, Kant also outlines in his other work the importance of moral autonomy, which seems to betray his view of a citizen's duty to obey. As Arntzen states: “by denying a right of resistance even when civil society falls short of the ideal civil society, he maintains that one has a duty to act according to a will that is not one's own, and thereby seems to betray the person's autonomy and dignity he has so strongly asserted in GMS and KpV” (Arntzen: 1996). Arntzen then goes on to state that Kant must allow
"One can regard the history of the human species, in the large, as the realization of a hidden plan of nature to bring about an internally, and for this purpose, also an externally perfect national constitution, as the sole state in which all of humanity's natural capacities can be developed (36)." Kant is explicit in his notion of human history: for him it is the development toward the telos, the end in which mankind finally exists in a state conducive to its proper development. Specifically, history entails a constant antagonism of man between his desire for total freedom and his need for society, between the necessity of a human master and the moral crisis it represents, and between one society and its neighbors.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
that, it is more likely that an entire society enlightening itself, than it is for individual to achieve enlightenment. In Perpetual Peace, Kant professes that, “reason, which is pragmatically capable of applying the ideas of right according to this principle, constantly increases with the continuous progress of culture”(124). According to Kant, society is slowly progressing, so one can infer that our capacity for reason is also slowly improving and enlightening society as a whole. This progress cannot happen, however, if citizens are bound by duty and are forbidden from taking action and rebelling against their corrupt government. In agreement with Locke, it is citizen's’ duty to help progress society and obey their rulers, but if those rulers are inhibiting their citizens from achieving enlightenment, then I would disagree with Kant and encourage those citizens to take action and attempt to reform their government. A compact that has its citizens worse off than if they were in the state of nature should be questioned and changed, even if it means entering into a state of nature. If Kant’s belief that, “the human race will [...] henceforth progressively improve without any more total reversals” (184), then society will continue on its path towards enlightenment, despite
People are given the ability to question things as long as nothing is done. Kant states, “argue as much as you please, but obey!” This gives people the illusion of choice without any actual reform. Making individuals philosophize about their problems essentially distracts them from taking action. Kant later states, “A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity.” He insinuates that less freedom in reality encourages freedom theoretically. What is the point in having freedom if it does not do anything? Kant answers that reform can be achieved “by uniting the voices of many (but not necessarily all) scholars.” This makes freedom an abstract concept that has the potential to be claimed, but is nearly impossible to achieve. Kant claims that a scholar, or an enlightened person, can only become so through individual thought; thus, a group of individuals must come to the same conclusion separately to achieve reform. Having too many scholars results in too many ideas; similarly, too few scholars makes even a unanimous idea weak. This virtual inaccessibility of freedom furthers the Enlightenment philosophy’s unjust agenda of encouraging the inaction of the masses. Kant also displays the cons of enlightenment philosophy in his account of the races. He says, “this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). 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).
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not posses the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, for Kant self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
Kant believes in the humanity formula which involves the respect of persons for whatever reason it is that could be essential for humanity. There is always something wrong in treating people like instruments with no other value beyond this. Kant would appreciate the idea of vaccination which would lead to the rise of a healthier generation. This shows respect to humanity at large because an action can only be good if the principle behind it is duty to the moral law.