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
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.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences.
Nonconsequentialism came from the work of Immanuel Kant, who is known to be the founder of critical philosophy. Markham (2007) described Kant as ‘the giant in philosophy’. Through his research and work, Immanuel Kant labelled himself a deontologist. According to Markham (2007), a deontologist is ‘a person who recognises that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must be applied consistently to all situations’. Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome.
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.
What is Philosophy? Etymologically speaking, the term Philosophy came from the Greek word philos meaning “to love” and sophia meaning “wisdom.” So, Philosophy litearally means “the love of wisdom”. In a same sense, Philosophy is the study of nature of knowledge, existence, and reality. According to Jacques Maritain, “Philosophy is the science by which the natural light of reason studies the first causes or highest principles of all things – is, in other words, the science of things in their first causes, in so far as these belong to the natural order.” As you move further in this course, your understanding of philosophy will grow as how philosophers want people to see the “natural light” of comprehending it. Bertrand Russel’s Value of Philosophy
According to Kant’s point of view, a critical subject endowed with rational capacities is a sufficient condition for freedom. Reason ought to be seen as the highest priority in morality (Scruton, 2001, p.60), and it is the reason why Kant has often emphasized rationality and reason in his works. One of the most mentioned philosophical concepts from Kant is categorical imperative. Kant regards the concept of categorical imperative as a universal law, which is possible to make adoption in all rational beings. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative.
This paper argues that the notion of Substance propounded by Baruch Spinoza can be studied and put forward to a panentheistic, expressive structure of Trinities, in which each triad of concepts is unified into a single idiosyncratic divine nature of God. By dissecting the expressionism in Spinoza’s writings, which is at variance with the philosophy of his predecessors (Descartes, Aquinas and Scotus), one can map out his thinking in analytic and synthetic logic to understand his revolutionary rationalist ontology in Ethics that impacted Europe in the seventeenth century. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. A solemn prayer always begins and ends with this invariably enthralling phrase which, incontrovertibly, reverberates
Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
Philosophy 100 Steven Phan Kant, Immanuel: Grounding of Metaphysics of Moral 10-19-15 The first of Kant’s essay about metaphysics on morality, he revealed to us that it is one’s sense of duty, which makes it a moral action. He also explained what logic is as it pertains understanding the most reasonable course to take, and as well as how it can only be a pure concept as it does not derive from experiences. Taking all of this into account, in the second part of Kant’s essay, he start with the idea that there is now way to give an example of a moral action outside of it being of duty. See that humans are able to make choices, their actions can fall into two categories of why they do them, according to Kant. The first category is called the hypothetical imperative, and it’s when the rational reasoning behind the course of action is clear and for one’s own goal.