Kant Analysis

For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important. Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and

In the Critique of Pure Reason, philosopher Immanuel Kant aims to thoroughly explain his philosophy of the metaphysical world. Within the Transcendental Aesthetic, Kant focuses on confirming that space and time are a priori intuitions. He provides reasoning and arguments as to why they are transcendentally ideal but empirically real, making space and time subjectively necessary for experiences. Simultaneously, Kant distinguishes space and time from secondary qualities, which belong to our senses through experience, by confirming that unlike space and time, secondary qualities are not empirically real. Kant does run into conflicts with his theory, he still successfully claims that space and time are transcendentally ideal but empirically real, as well as distinguish them from secondary qualities by supporting his theories with reasoning.

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, main goal was to discover the answer to how human beings could be genuinely good and kind, apart from the expectations of traditional religions. Immanuel Kant was born in the year 1724 to parents who were extremely modest. His father was a saddle maker who never made an excess amount of money. He was very thankful for his family and all things God had him blessed with. Kant got a late start in his studies, unlike David Hume. It was not until he was in his fifties that he became a professor that acquired a full salary and received a considerable amount of respect. Kant’s family held him to high standards and made it appoint to practice their religious beliefs. As Kant grew in age and knowledge he did not have any orthodox religious beliefs, but still saw the role that religion had played in his parent’s ability to deal with their hardships and blessing and how useful religion could be in creating a society where everyone was united.

In the scenario Lying to the Murderer at the Door the murderer was to ask Kant where is his victim. Based on his CI he cannot lie in any circumstance, thus making him tell the murderer where his victim is, furthermore making Kant partly responsible for the victim's death. Benjamin Constant attacked Kant immediately by saying " The moral principle, it is a duty to tell the truth, would make any society impossible if it were taken singly and unconditionally". Kant responded with his own document called "On a Supposed right to Lie From Altruistic Motives" where he stated "To tell the truth is thus a duty: but is a duty only in respect to one who has a right to the truth". This argument completely destroys his CI. Kant's philosophy is priori which means that through reason all laws can be used in any situation. One who has the right to truth cannot be determined before understanding the persons intentions. You cannot automatically know not to lie in every situation, because you must interpret the situation. 2 Corinthians 5:10 tells us " For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil". God is the one to decide if we are to lie or not, thus Kant is lacking faith and judgment in his first Formulation.

Kant's other assumption is that everybody's aim is achieve summum bonum, but it would be wrong to assume that everybody has the same goals in life.

Moore presents, in his paper, exactly the evidence that Kant is searching for, in a clear and simple argument that seems to answer ‘the skeptic’s’ main concern as well. There are many variations of skeptical arguments against the existence of an external world, but we can more generally define ‘the skeptic’ as someone who does not believe that it is possible to have adequate justification for a knowledge claim—in this case, knowledge claims about an external world’s existence. In other words, they claim no one can know anything for certain, even about the existence of the world around us. Moore’s argument, however, makes skeptics’ concerns seem rather silly, compared to his sensible, much more obvious points.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

3. Are the “precogs” being used in a way that violates the second formulation of Kant’s moral law?

Whether or not this Deduction is successful in any regard, it certainly does not achieve all of the aims that Kant sets for it. For, as Paul Guyer argues, the fact that everyone is possessed of faculties which make them capable of "unifying manifolds under

1) A case where Kant believes an action seems good despite having a bad outcome would be a mother duck and her ducklings are trying to gross the road. You stop your car, and you are getting out to help them cross the road safety when a big truck swerves around you, seemingly in a hurry, and kills the entire family. You gave your best effort to help, but a third party came in and destroyed your plan.

According to Kant (1788), all knowledge that states fact is either ‘a priori’ (exists by definition) or ‘a posteriori’ (knowable by experience) and is

Kant’s argument is entirely by example. He asks the reader to consider the proposition “5 + 7 = 12”. On the face of it, Kant observes, this might be interpreted to be an analytic proposition, which follows from the concept of the law of noncontradiction. However, if one is to consider the statement “five plus seven” more closely, it is discovered that the concept of the sum of five and seven represents only a unification of these two individual numbers. It does not, in fact, yield the singular number “twelve” by mere examination of the sum. Kant states that one must “seek assistance in the intuition” (B15) and utilize one’s fingers or consider points, and only after unifying those five fingers with seven in addition or gathering five points to seven points can one arrive at the concept of twelve - something must also be done above and beyond the statement “the sum of five and seven” in order to conclude “twelve”. In other words, the concept of twelve is not contained within the predicate of the addition of five and seven, and is hence not an analytic judgment. This entails, therefore, that arithmetic is a synthetic judgment. Kant claims that this point is more salient with larger numbers that aren’t so readily

This quote most aptly describes Kant’s purpose in writing a critique of aesthetic judgment, with the most important term being “transcendental.” The Oxford Dictionary defines the word as “presupposed in and necessary to experience” (what Kant refers to as a priori). In this sense, it is something that pertains to elements of human experience and then in turn conditions human knowledge. Basically (and specific to this essay and to Kant’s theory), what needs to be present for a judgment of aesthetics to occur? Kant divides the “Analytic of Aesthetic Judgment” into four moments according to the four divisions of the table of logical functions of judging: quality, quantity, relation and modality. In doing research for this essay, I found that Kant was interested in analytical investigations into many subjects and did so in an almost scientific fashion, so this sort of division makes sense. Each moment is serial, and the questions raised in one moment are then addressed in the following moment. “I have used the logical functions of judging to help me find the moments that judgment takes into consideration when it reflects” (Kant, pg. 43). Based on this context, these moments are not temporal moments, but more realms of thought or consideration. How are the conceptual

Not satisfied with the current theories of the nature of time, Kant moves to show their faults through a set of arguments.