Kant’s claims regarding humanity are not speciesist in favour of humans as one might interpret them, but rather is making a claim regarding a capacity for reason. It is through this rationality that an agent is able to identify and set ends for themselves, albeit Kant would probably have believed humans to be the only species capable of such
Kant and Aristotle have different ideas of virtue because they have different questions. Aristotle’s main question is what kind of character is good for people to live with happiness while Kant’s question is what kind of character is most deserving of moral character. Since they pose different questions, they are virtue is different. They are ideas seem to conflict each other, but they try to answer different question, so we cannot see whether they are really conflicted each other or not. Aristotle explains that a virtuous person is who can modulate passions and consideration.
First of all, Kant 's second formulation of the categorical imperative specifies that "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. "(Kant) According to this point, people should help the hungry because of that they are humans. On the other hand, enforcing people to help the hungry make the situation opposition of the formula of Kant because there are always some who do not want to help them because of that they are human, but they help the hungry to not break the law. Thus, enforcing people to help the hungry does not make them treat the hungry as an end themselves. This point also embraces the Kant 's idea that motivation of action is more important than consequences.
He handled many issues in the area of philosophy, and he came into prominence with his analysis, criticizes and revealing the new terms. One of the term that he analyzed is epistomology, and in Kant 's epistomology we can not know the main meaning of the thing in real; he values the human mind above everything,and he says rationality works same for everyone. With this association mathematic exists,and with it 's effect we can comunicate with eachother. However,we can only reach limited information about reality, because we can only receive the knowledge which passes through out filters of mind. In the same way in moral philosophy, because of that every humanbeing has the same structure of mind,we can reach the common truths with using our mind,and these truths are only associate with our minds.
In the eighteenth century Europe, there was an abundance of places where people could get together and discuss the issues of their time such as the coffeehouses, gentlemen clubs or masonic lodges, hence a perfect environment for the action of what Kant calls "the public use of reason". Moreover, the revolutions happening everywhere in the European science, politics and society made way to the consciousness of the modern civilization. The article is also historically important for that Kant was able to flourish and spread his ideas because, according to him, he was living in the most tolerant society in Europe of that time, the Prussia of the Fredrik the Great, who Kant confirms as having alleviated many hindrances to enlightenment of his
For example, things that seem good like wit, money, or intelligence, are only good to the extent that they bring us other things. Kant stresses right action, the action done from duty without self-interest, and goodness, which is based on motivation and intention. One of Kant’s ideas was that of the categorical imperative, in which you act as though you maxim might become a universal law. There are two forms of the categorical imperative, the formula of the universal law and the law of humanity. The form that most fits the trolley
Kant always emphasized that everyone should be treated freely and equally. He emphasizes that everyone should be treated valuable and not be used to benefit others. He sets a fine line though saying he does not want people not be used at all, but if they are in the situation where they are that they should be treated just like you would want to be treated. What he tried to emphasis on the duty theory is that it is not only about doing the right thing. Immanuel Kant tries very hard to put morality out there on how human beings should be treated and his theory can be seen as absolutely amazing.
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 well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its members. Similarly, if a government is choosing a policy, it should give equal consideration to the well-being of all members of the society. Act utilitarian’s like believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the action that will create the greatest happiness. However, critics of act utilitarianism raise three strong objections against it. According to these critics, act utilitarianism approves of actions that are clearly wrong, undermines trust among people and is too demanding because it requires people to make excessive levels of sacrifices.
Despite the government’s interference, society, and God, every man has the right to his own ideas and choices. For example, Kant says, “...rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will be the interest and will of the nation (Mill 2).” Kant saying this means that those who govern the nation, should not choose himself to make the choices for a man's way of life because those choices may not always show goodness. Instead, those who govern the nation should be chosen and should listen and acknowledge the thoughts that are brought to them. Another example that exemplifies Kant arguing for the definition of moral is towards the end of the passage he says that “freedom is pursuing our own good in our own…(Mill ).” Here he is arguing that as long as one does not interfere with the ways of another man, then the freedom we deserve should be ours to do what we please, hoping that men choose to do what is right. John Mill wrote a powerful piece about his thoughts and beliefs on what moral resembled, but he is just one of many to do