Silber says these rules are postulates of rationality since applying these rules in moral law could guarantee a rational consequence in a requisite sense. He explains: ‘‘only if the norms of morality, rules of thought and rules of aesthetic evaluation are treated as descriptive procedures, then there can be initially rational knowledge in science, the free play of sensibility and recognizing in aesthetic experience, autonomous action in moral experience’’ (Silber 200). Through postulates of rationality, Silber understands Kant to imply that his readers should follow the pragmatic rational-directed procedural ethic as he explains in the following: The procedurals of judgments in ethics. The procedural interpretation of rationality, that is,
The other theory is Deontology, Immanuel Kant a German philosopher; he develops a theory that the only thing that has intrinsically value is a good will. In this theory an action only can be good if it is maxim and if you can universalize it. This have 2 distinct issues the intentions that are worthy of praise or blame and the actions that can be good or bad. (Fundamentals of Ethics, 162) Kant says: “what has intrinsic value? Act only on universalizable maxims.
accept suicide, indifference to the welfare of others, false promises, and the neglect of one’s talents, although both formulations are independent. This type of practical equivalent thesis is what I term the weak version of equivalence because at first glimpse there is no conceptual relation between the two formulations. However, Kant goes on to develop another version of equivalence noting a conceptual relation between the two formulations. By unpacking possible translations of the terms, the one formulation can be seen, although perhaps not at first consideration, as an explication of the other; this I refer to as the strong version of equivalence. This strong version is much closer to complementary Kantian ethics given the theoretical unity that emerges in the Groundwork, which practical equivalence does not achieve.
From this aspect, he shows similarity to the Plato, since Plato also gives importance to the rational side of human. However, reaching moral goodness is not possible for everyone in Plato, whereas, Kant makes an assumption that each individual has the capacity of establishing their own morality system by themselves. This process of constructing moral system for everyone includes bringing some restrictions to the free will. Kant investigates a doctrine which can turn a will into a moral will: ‘’But what kind of law can that be, the representation of which must determine the will, even without regard for the effect expected from it, in order for the will to be called good absolutely and without limitation.’’ In order to answer this question he proposes that making our action consistent with the
134776 PH134 – Philosophy of Language Cratylus Plato’s Cratylus is a dialogue about the ‘correctness of names’, or the method of assigning or appropriating names to things. In the exchange, three interlocutors participate and contribute to the discussion at hand. Hermogenes defends the idea that the correctness of names is establishing linguistic conventions. He points out the randomness with which names are imposed and facile way of changing them as evidence that there is nothing more than simply ‘convention and agreement’; the name is only justified by agreement. On the other hand, Cratylus argues that names cannot be arbitrarily chosen in the way that conventionalism asserts or advocates because specific names belong naturally to specific
Kant’s transcendental idealism is kind of empirical realism in that he holds the manifestations of objects have objective validity, that is, the object is not given experiential characteristics other than a thing in it, that allowing for lawful experience is the essential expression of the transcendental aesthetic which Kant emphasizes in Groundwork and throughout his moral
“Russell reaffirm his commitment to psychology and epistemological approach to language.”(p.10) Russell thinks of the logical positivist for the linguistic bias. When Russell comes to define propositions he does so in psychological terms. He said, “it is necessary to distinguish proposition from sentences but proposition need not be indefinable.”(p.10) they can be defined as psychological occurrence like certain images and expectations. This psychological is made clear by the fact that propositions can be false. Analytic
impartiality might allow special consideration for persons who have traditionally been marginalized or subject to discrimination. Rawls comes to realize that the ultimate argument for the difference principle is a Kantian one. In order to extend my discussion further, I now turn to an examination of Kantian non-formal impartiality. The following paragraphs will allow me to set forth my arguments more cogently. The value of non-formal impartiality At the outset, the following question will help direct our examination of non-formal impartiality: How exactly is the Kantian duty of beneficence determined by non-formal impartiality rather than formal impartiality?
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. However to what extent can his theory be used and what are the strengths and weaknesses that occur from his theory? The strengths and the main points that stand out in Kant´s theory are, he emphasis the value of every human being, he shines light that some acts can always be perceived as being wrong and it provides certainty. In further detail the theory proceeds on the assumption that every human being is endowed with reason, should purely act out of duty and carry responsibility for one´s actions. It´s totality is easily understandable as well as applicable - do what is right, because it is right and the other way around, so to speak.
The knowledge the distinctive aspects provide is seen as separate from any exogenous factor. Two of the Philosophers who were rationalist were Plato and Descartes, whom I will tackle their view of rationalism in this paper. Philosophers who oppose rationalism are identified as “empiricist”, and their motto is that human experience comes from knowledge. Also I will tackle Kant ‘s (who was considered an idealist philosopher) view of rationalism. Briefly, Kant divided the metaphysics of knowledge into two parts; one part contains pure concepts that come from experience and the other part is independent of experience.