In book one of the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant deals with the concept of pure reason. He asserts that these concepts which are derived from pure reason are accomplished by inference and not by reflection alone. The notions of reason are Ideal inventions which though in a certain sense rest upon experience but it go beyond the limits of experience. Generally, the concepts of reason allow us to comprehend while the concepts of understanding assist one to understand. 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.
Kant was an 18th century philosopher who examined the roots of philosophy and formed the deontological moral duty theory. This theory assesses the moral integrity of an action, based on its motive, irrespective of its consequence; hence asserting that an action can only be good if, and only if, its maxim is duty to the moral law. The basic structure of Kant 's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which explains that we have a duty to act in the same way every time we are faced with an ethical decision. You do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. According to Kant only the categorical imperative provides an enlightened premise for making decisions without relying on any other order i.e.
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
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 whether 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 need a philosopher to show us which action is right, we already know that based on what he calls it the common human reason.
Also, a single person cannot make an expectation for themselves from committing a wrong action. Kant felt that if an individual makes an exception for oneself then its consider wrong and unfair. The propose of universal law is to bring good actions because Kant want good to be spread universally and everyone is treated equally. The second imperative is hypothetical, which mainly focuses on the idea of humanity. Kant mainly focuses on that we should treat individuals with humanity.
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant believed that people’s actions ought to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal. He held that in order to apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of morality must itself be based on reason. There are two categorical of Kantianism, first is “Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will be universal moral laws” and second is “Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end”. In the debate about the right to remain silent in Vietnam, if the right are accepted, we will avoid many wrongful convictions from interrogation
The goal of deontology is to find a categorical, unconditional imperative that will enable the creation of universal laws of nature, legislated by rational and free beings. The categorical imperative is formal, while the substance is decided by the person. The idea is that by a process of reasoning, one can check his intuitions and desires and see if they can become a general rule for moral behavior. Kant bases his theory on three main concepts: the good will, the duty and the law. The moral worth of an action is measured in its intention.
In the first place, since all obligations are supreme, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts ( for instance, telling the truth about something or protecting somebody that you love). The second problem with his theory is that it doesn’t take feelings into account. What Kant does say is that any accidental maxims that would require coercing somebody into doing something without consent or deceiving someone is wrong ( O’Neill, 113). But what O’Neill says is that when we act on such maxims we treat others as mere means and as things rather than as ends in themselves. Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114).
CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform. Instead of this, it can tells us which maxims to fit acting morally. CI applies a test on maxims to conduct a necessary condition of their acceptability. This means that when we decide how to act in a given situation and choose the action (with our free, autonomous will), we would want everyone else to act just as we did. The autonomy of this decision leads to personal responsibility, and excludes any other reason to act that was not from our own free will.
Both philosophers acknowledged that the self was integral to the origin on the knowledge. The self was the start to philosophical reflection. Although Hume did not share the belief in the existence of the self compared to Descartes, he understood humanities with it; "our propension to confound identity with relation is so great, that we are apt to imagine something unknown and mysterious connecting the parts (126)" This exemplifies that Hume is conscious of the wants and desires of humans with their mind and soul. Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society.