Discuss the role of reason according to Kant. Show how reason is tied to autonomy and to Kant requirement that we respect others. Consider any weaknesses in Kant 's emphasis on reason in his moral theory. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who was widely considered to be a central figure of modern philosophy. He argued that fundamental concepts structure human experience, and that reason is the source of morality.
The difference portrayed between concepts achieved through reflection and concepts obtained by inference seems to be misleading whereas the groupings of understanding state experience and so facilitates the unity of consciousness which is necessary to all reflection. The purpose of the Ideas is to systematise experience in its entirety and the function of the classes is to provide possible the sense-perceptions essential aspect of its content. The former is unconditioned and it characterises a type of knowledge to which is not adequate to any actual experience. So the transcendental ideas are the concepts of pure reason which correspond to concepts of understanding categories. In a general sense, Kant uses the word 'Idea ' in Platonic usage.
By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things. Being good, in others words moral, means what? Kant is that the only thing without qualification that is good is the act of having a good will. The good will is the will to do the right thing and everything else (ie. money, courage etc) can be used for good or evil.
What is a categorical imperative? Why should one obey a categorical imperative? One main aspect of Immanuel Kant’s Deontological ethics is the philosophy of the categorical imperative. As he explained, the understanding behind the categorical imperative is that, in order for an individual to have moral worth, he must do his duty. In the book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that the general concept of morality is divided into two rules of reason.
This essay will focus on Merleau-Ponty’s account of our relations with Others, as well as its relation to Sartre’s philosophy and how effective of a critique Merleau-Ponty offers to the Sartrean understanding of our relationship to the Other. Throughout the essay i shall refer to the relationship between the Individual and the Other, this is simply to mean the relationship found between the ‘I’ and the other humans they interact with who have questionable similarity to the ‘I’. Our relationship to Others is a significant area of discussion because it opens the problem of Other Minds, which entails the idea that I, as an individual, cannot verify that any other individual I interact with is conscious in the same way I am. Both Sartre and Merleau-Ponty discuss the importance of the Other in verifying the existence of the individual, and the extent to which one can be aware of the Other’s internal life, differing significantly on their understanding of whether the world is shared or closed. We will arrive at the conclusion that while Merleau-Ponty presents a successful and effective alternative to the Sartrean account, it is an effective critique because it returns constantly to the damning criticism that Sartre butchers the reality of one 's interaction with the Other and tries to over simplify very complex human behavior, such as social relationships.
The doctrines of Mencius and Hsün Tzu are the part of the core and major, almost compulsory to the studying of Classical Confucianism. Some of the researchers found their differences, even called contradiction among discussing about human nature. Here comes the conclusion that Men Tzu and Hsün Tzu are two extremes, with completely different in their views about human nature. Nevertheless, we should refocus on the root of their philosophy, to determine rather they are different or not. Conversely, it can be concluded that Mencius and Hsün Tzu are similar base on their process of thinking, also their continuous advocation on self-cultivation and education.
As Petrie stated in the postscript, he starts by establishing credibility with his experiences as a student and educator and presenting both sides of his argument to gain the respect of his audience. His “sharply split opinions” signaled to the audience that his essay could go either way. By starting off with his primary research, he gained the reader’s attention enough that he or she would continue reading, despite their own opinions on the topic. His purpose for writing was driven by his numerous ordinary, but detrimental, experiences with college athletes as a student and as an educator. One sentence that reveals his purpose is, “It’s sad to see bright young athletes knowingly compromise their potential and settle for much less education than they deserve.” The last paragraph also shows Petrie’s purpose.
I read both the William James article, “The Will to Believe,’’ and William Kingdon Clifford’s “The Ethics of Beliefs”. Each of these writings explained the author’s views on human’s and their belief systems. William James broke down belief into different category’s that certain beliefs could fall under. William Kingdon Clifford’s idea was much more straight to the point. Clifford states that if you do not have good evidence for something, then it must be wrong.
Numerous educators and understudies of philosophy today feel that the subject is under risk – from a more inescapable and less quantifiable social move towards measuring our thoughts just in such instrumental and fiscal terms. The topic of why the theory is vital some of the time gets caught with our own gaudiness. More to the point, maybe, when we look to ensure rationality we are additionally securing our point of view. There is an incongruity here since philosophers frequently introduce themselves as masterminds who accomplish an incomparable objectivity in connection to whatever issues they draw in with. In the values of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell guarantees that Philosophy is important on account of the inquiries that it poses—these questions such as expand our origination of what is
I want to share my experience, as I’ve gone through this experience in the Intensive Care Unit at first day of employment. I failed to assess the alarming signs while the patent is going to deteriorate. I was totally confused at that moment what should be my next action; whether to call staff, start CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) or generate a rush call? Due to anxiety I further wasted a couple of second to take appropriate decision. There is evidence that ‘at risk’ patients are not always identified; and even when warning signs are identified, they are not always acted on in a timely manner (Thompson et al., 2008).