Hegel 's Critique Of Kantian Moral Ethics

Nagel’s argument is harder to refute, owing to its lack of definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, its effectiveness remains debateable. It is interesting that he embraces the incomprehensibility of

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.

The entire subject of philosophy, according to Hegel, consists of the study of the history of the world and the creation of truth. When man first became aware of objects, he viewed everything in the context of death or negation. When the self encounters other people, its first reaction is to view them as objects and risk its life to kill them. After that comes the master/slave relationship, where certain people rise to the top of society and exercise control over others. Ironically, the slave actually has a more stable means of self-validation. The slave identifies with his work, which is never-ending, while the master identifies with his control over the slaves, which could end at a moment's notice. Another ideal, which we derive from Hegel, is that of "stoicism." Stoicism, defined as the recognition of the self as sovereign and independent. The individual tries to lead a self-contained life of reason but is still susceptible to the psychological residue of the master/slave relationship as well as nature's eternal mastery. After this stage comes skepticism, which is an extreme form of stoicism where the self becomes completely rational and destroys nature by doubting it. The self is still limited by the master/slave

Kant and Hobbes have completely different interpretations of morality. The vast differences between them is due to their opposing schools of thought. Kant’s view on morality is very analytical and strict. Whereas, Hobbes’ view is both provisional and tentative, depending on the outcomes. Although these differences between their philosophies were present, they both took a subjective stance in their reasoning meaning, they believed moral philosophy should be centered on the person. This essay will compare Kant and Hobbes while dissecting their contrasting schools of thought, Deontology and Consquentialism. While examining these philosophers their opposing ideas of reason, human nature, and morality will be highlighted. Also, while showing the degree of divergence between Kant and Hobbes, their ideas will be correlated to see which is most applicable to the normal lives of common people.

German philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) have traditionally been viewed as polar opposites in terms of their philosophy. Hegel has been dubbed an idealist and a systematic philosopher who identified various different types of History, theoretical entities and concepts. Nietzsche, on the other hand, is seen to be a counter-Enlightenment and counter-systematic philosopher who penned the well-known text, ‘Genealogy of Morals’. In this essay, I aim to bring to light the underlying similarities between the two thinkers that have previously been overlooked, as well as to identify the differences in Hegel and Nietzsche’s ideologies and presuppositions.

For most people, to figure out who someone is and why they think the way they do, one has to step in to the other’s shoes to see who they are. Immanuel Kant was born into Pietism and was raised on traditional Lutheran values of humility and divine grace.3 He attended Collegium Frierician in Konigsberg, Russia, as a child then, later, attended the University of Konigsberg. He studied classics but, eventually, found interest in philosophy.3 When his mother passed, he was only thirteen, and his father died when he was twenty-two.3 Eventually, Kant left school and started working as a tutor for several families where he lived.3 As time passed, he found himself teaching Privatdozent at the University until he was forty-six.3 He also attained the position of a professor of logic and metaphysics.3

From this point, Hegel introduces the archetypes of the lord and the bondsman. The bondsman is the position that most of humanity occupies since most people are ultimately concerned for the struggle for bodily survival as a result of the profound fear of death and place that struggle as being central to existence and far more important than defending the integrity of the ego, an invisible concept which may not help them in their endeavors. Because they are easily manipulated by these external needs, men often fall under the power of other men, such as the lord and the bondsman loses sight of himself more as he begins to work for the lord. The problem of enslavement becomes much worse, especially if one’s sense of self is vastly different than the ‘other’s’ objective view of the self (since the self views the ‘other’ as an object). Although that seems to be the crux of the relationship, this working through fear is simply the first phase toward an independent self-consciousness.

Thusly it is seen that Kierkegaard seemed to almost be fixated on discrediting Hegel and the Romantics. Comparisons of such dialectically opposed philosophies are difficult to explore, since one is so critical of the other. However, as mentioned above, both must be credited to the influences of Romanticism. Hegel redefined their “world spirit”

In Aesthetics, Hegel claims that tragic fate is rational, for reason prevents individuals from holding one-sided positions. [1. When he makes this claim, is he speaking of the tragic hero, or of the audience? This is to say, is tragic fate rational inside the work of tragedy, or is it rational in an external way, in In Aesthetics, Hegel claims that tragic fate is rational, for reason prevents individuals from holding one-sided positions. [1. When he makes this claim, is he speaking of the tragic hero, or of the audience? This is to say, is tragic fate rational inside the work of tragedy, or is it rational in an external way, in a way which is observed rather than portrayed?] Reason is that which allows the tragic hero to see the moral validity

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

In this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in it's formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society and the government are where freedom is actualized.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

George Hegel introduced to the world to the theory of ideas, known as the Hegelian dialectic, and it is quite astonishing as it contemplates and assesses contradicting ideas and ultimately generates a new idea. Hegel believes that all human ideas (thesis) are often in heated confrontations with their similar counterparts (antithesis), in which both may be equally feasible for a society. Hegel believes that these issues must be resolved through the synthesis of a new idea.

However, before any analysis can begin it is important to understand the author and his ability. The works of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F.

Hegel disagrees with some of Kant’s ideas regarding morality and social institutions. Hegel believes that our right is depended on rational institutions and that people cannot fathom maximal freedom due to the confusion of how it is truly achieved, while Kant thinks that the construction of social institution ought to maximize personal freedom under the universal law.