For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4
Topic:- The Critical Study of Kant’s Doctrine of Right. Introduction: What is Right? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A right defines what we may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
Nietzsche wrote about some moralists and posits that they just accept their cultures’ morality and serve as its shield bearers rather than as rigorous critics. Nietzsche here specifies that his task is not simply to expose the psychological and historical contingencies that make for different moralities, but to question moralities for their objective functional value. According to Nietzsche, that a particular morality comes from an erroneous, mythical tradition does not by itself tell us that, that morality is worthless just because it has traditionally been falsely conceived. Similarly, the psychological ways that we form moral concepts does not invalidate their claims to objective value. Neither does showing the historical and cultural processes
By liberty, he means the right to think for oneself, the right to speak, consequently more or less, the rights decided within the Bill of Rights. Basically, in contrast to Hobbes, Locke believes that people do not come pre-programmed to do evil or immoral actions but instead they learn these behaviors. Thus concluding my analyses of the differing viewpoints of the two philosophers. 6. How does virtue ethics differ from Kantian and utilitarian ethics?
His philosophy had a massive impact on further development of European philosophy. Kant, an outstanding Dutch philosopher, in all seriousness perceived many of Hume’s conclusions. For instance, that whole material of knowledge we get from experience and that empirical methods of human understanding are not able to provide its objectivity and necessity, and by this, to substantiate the potential of theoretical sciences and philosophy. Auguste Comte’s ideas about some science’ buildings which linked just with the description of phenomena but not with its explanation, and row of another positivist conclusions were based on Hume’s skepticism. On the other hand, further development of knowledge and philosophy confirmed Hume’s anxiety concerning any philosophical conclusions.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences. While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
The fact that synthetic a priori knowledge is known by us suggests that important truths can be known by the pure reason. However, rationalist metaphysics was not followed by the author Immanuel Kant in asserting that pure reason has the influence to take hold of the mysteries of the world. Instead, the author suggests that whatever we perceives in mind shapes the reality. As per author the mind do not inactively receive information provided by the senses. Instead, it actively shapes and makes sense of that information.