There is an interesting question to be raised when discussing the philosophy of Kant and his approach toward evil. The question lies in whether Kant’s philosophy is efficient to explain human predicament, that is, a person’s suffering in relation to a cause—usually evil—that he is subject to. In my opinion, although Kant’s arguments concerning evil are clear and logical in a sense, his theory is still too flawed to properly explain human predicament. In this paper, I will provide two reasons, which I would like to call common sense, to argue my position. First, Kant places too much emphasis on the intent behind an action rather than the consequence of the action itself. Second, his definition of moral law to which people should adhere, that …show more content…
According to Kant, a person performs moral duty because he recognizes it is the right thing to do; however, if the reason as to why he acted in such a way is because he wanted to pursue a certain self-interest, then that action is considered evil. If there is a pattern to this occurrence, which is called impurity, it makes the person become slightly more corrupted, but not enough to be considered evil yet. Finally, if a person deliberately and always choose to prioritize self-interest over moral duty, that is, he will only perform moral duty if it conforms to his self-interest, then that person is categorized as wickedness, which is the highest degree of evil. Now, my question is simple: Is a person considered evil if he chose to perform moral duty because it would benefit him in a way or another? My answer is no if and only if it does not involve any sort of pain or suffering. We live in a society where evil is generally defined as something that causes suffering or harm to another being. It does not matter whether you uphold moral duty for the sake of fulfilling your self-interest as long as the outcome conforms to the moral law. For instance, if you came upon a wealthy-looking man in a dire need of help in a forest, perhaps because he injured his leg and could not return to his destination, it does not matter whether your intent was to launder money off of him by helping him. As long as you upheld your moral duty by helping him, then you should be considered a good person. Part of that reason is mainly because I feel that it is not for us to judge whether we are good or evil, but for other people to do so, and if other people cannot see the intent behind your actions, then there is no way for them to know whether you are good or evil. In my opinion, the intent behind your action is an irrelevant distraction, that is, it is
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
This is the idea behind the rhetoric of ‘necessary evils’. E.g., one can say that abortion is impermissible (the end is termination of a foetus) while an operation which results in the death of a foetus but saves a pregnant woman’s life is arguably permissible (the end is saving a life, the means is the termination of a foetus). The concept of positive duty is to give aid to others. Negative duty is not harming others.
Acts of evil for some can be acts of kindness for others. An example of looking through the different lens is Osama Bin Laden. The former leader of a radical jihadist group known as Al-Qaeda was in charge of mass attacks on the US and throughout the world. Bin Laden's
Werner’s story taught us there will always be evil, but as long as there is courage and community, good will prevail. By making the choices that align with our morals, by utilizing our free will, we can ensure the outcome. Werner asks himself and the reader, “Is it right to do something only because everyone else is doing it?” (Doerr 246). Werner’s story tells us the correct answer is no.
Those who commit wicked acts because they can not see what is truly good have a skewed point of view for a reason. Their character is tainted by vice because they have habitually committed vicious acts in the past. Since they originally had a conscience, they must have willingly committed wrongdoing to warp their perception of what is good. Therefore, those who pursue an apparent good but commit wrong acts, due to a skewed appearance of what is good, are still responsible for their
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that human beings tend to be evil. He wasn’t talking about some man rubbing his hands and immodest with glee at the view of punishing someone who you don’t like. Kant was thinking about the basic human leaning to give in to what we want to do instead of what we shawl do, to pay attention to the siren-song of our needs instead of the roller coaster. For Kant morality is the force that closes this gap and holds us back from our devious desirous selves. Once desire becomes suspicious sex is never far behind.
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
This question has been asked for hundreds of years, are humans born inherently good or bad? Some might argue that as people mature, society’s influences ultimately determine whether or not that person will end up being good or bad. These people suggest that humans are naturally born of good intent. Many studies show that this may be true. In another case it can be argued that some people are born with a natural instinct to do bad things.
Throughout history, there have been many famous philosophers that contribute multiple different theories to humanity. This essay is going to focus on Immanuel Kant major theories in depth. The first theory focuses on knowing the difference between an “Animal and Human”. The second theory is to better understand how an individual can make certain decisions during their lifetime. The third theory is knowing the importance of goodwill and good intention.
Two of the most prominent philosophers in history are Immanuel Kant and John Locke. These two men had created the foundation for modern philosophy with their ideology and works. Immanuel Kant, born 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804, was a German philosopher who is widely considered the central figure of modern philosophy. Kant had argued that it is impossible to know every minuet detail about everything. Kant took himself to have effected a Copernican revolution in philosophy, relating to Copernicus ' reversal of the geocentric theory that the cosmos orbited the Earth.
People of virtue go out of their way to put others first and think about how they can help others and the world around them. Conversely, evil is understood to be morally repugnant behavior or acts which intentionally cause harm to others. Someone who is bad only thinks about themselves and how they can use others to their own benefit. I think that good and evil is inherent in all of us, as humans, and has been within us since the beginning of our existence.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of