Freedom and Reason In Kant Essay

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

Immanual Kant theorised that moral rules are based on reason, in other words the ability to think and form logical judgements.(2) He believed that this moral reasoning is a priori, which meant that there is no knowledge needed of the outcome of an action to know if it is right or wrong.(2) His theory is an example of a deontological theory – the

Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.

Edwards, Jonathan. An Inquiry into the Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of Will: Which Is Supposed to Be Essential to Moral Agency,

is an obligation by the will to act so that the action can be classified as a

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Kant’s categorical imperative is a natural conclusion of reason when searching for a moral guideline that does not depend on previous expense but reason alone. The categorical imperative can be explained in many different ways. Kant offers five formulations in his work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. The formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative can be considered a test. If your maxim passes the test then your actions under that maxim will be good. The formulations that Kant offers, they are not different rules in themselves, but different ways of stating the same thing. It is important to note that these formulations apply only to your maxim, or what you intend to do. The categorical imperative is based off of the assumption

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

In the section titled “The Unconscious Origins of the Will” Harris explores the roles that our consciousness have on our will. He explains that we are actually only conscious for a fraction

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

The concept of freedom has long been a popular tenet for philosophers to explore. From ancient Greek origins to the present day, many individuals have discussed the importance of freedom and the role it plays within society in an effort to define its relationship to the human condition. Two philosophers that have studied freedom in depth are John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Both philosophers viewed freedom as playing a major role in society; however, they conceptualized it in different ways, particularly in relation to its role with the nation. Perhaps the most notable aspect of these stances is Kant’s definition of the relationship between freedom, reason, and morality.

From here follows three arguments. The first argument proposes that conscious of our will stipulates our understanding of the “connexion” between soul and body and how these two operate with each other to create our will. Since we have no concept of the union of soul and body, there is no impression of “connexion” present through these means. The second argument raises the issue of why there are involuntary organs, such as the heart, that the will is unable to control (43). If we were truly knowledgeable about the power with which the will functions we would understand the existence of these limitations of the physical body and the reason behind the difference between voluntary and involuntary organs. The third argument addresses the motion of the body. The mind wills an event and the motion is observed, “but we are unable to observe or conceive the tie [“connexion”], which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect” (49). Hume summarizes that these three arguments prove that “our idea of power is not copied from any sentiment or consciousness of power within ourselves” (44).

a dress - which does not in fact suit her - just to make her feel