Kant And Kant 's Decision Procedures

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 Judgment by Immanuel Kant, Kant describes to readers what makes a judgment of taste valid. To be specific, Kant says that one must be disinterested in an object in order to truly find the object beautiful. This can be seen in his quote: “One must not be in the least prepossessed in favour of the thing, but must preserve complete indifference in this respect, in order to play the part of judge in matters of taste” (Cahn and Meskin 132). To Kant, disinterest means that the person who is judging the object is not interested in neither the existence or the destruction of the object. To illustrate, someone who has made a painting that they are going to sell; may find their own creation beautiful. However, their judgement is not

Emmanuel Kant once stated that the motto of Enlightenment was 'Have courage to use your own reason!' Enlightenment was a call to use one's own reason instead of depending on others for their knowledge, as he puts it: 'The public use of a man's reason must always be free.' While a rational nation ruled by logical men sounds utopian, but in reality? Enlightenment and the thinking behind it has been used as justification for every atrocity that the Western World has visited upon other races. It's dark legacy can be felt in everything from slavery to the holocaust.

Kant’s views about finding out if an action is morally good or not are plausible. But then, many objections about his views float in the air. Oftentimes, one of the objections can be heard: It is categorically wrong to lie in any circumstances, regardless of the consequences. It seems not reasonable, however, to hold that lying is categorically wrong in all circumstances. Imagine, for example, a situation in which a serial killer is on the hunt for your daughter. While searching for her, the killer, whom you know to be the killer, encounters you and asks for information regarding your daughter’s whereabouts. According to Kant’s deontological theory, you would be required to tell the truth. And by this, it doesn’t seem to be applied practically.

The principal thought that Kant presents in the second 50% of Chapter 2 is that sane creatures are "finishes in themselves." When you settle on a game-plan, Kant notes, you don't consider yourself a way to some other reason; you consider yourself the reason or "end" to which every one of your activities are coordinated. On the off chance that you anticipate that other individuals will acknowledge your thought processes, you should regard the way that other individuals additionally consider themselves more than negligible intends to different objectives. Hence your thought processes will need widespread legitimacy unless you regard the way that every normal being have natural worth, similarly as you do. The all out basic obliges you to regard

Based on the end of the reading, Kant broke his writing into three sections with a brief explanation how each section transitions from the common rational knowledge of morality to philosophical, from popular moral philosophy to metaphysic of morals, and the final section from the metaphysic of morals to the critique of the pure practical reason.

Kant created a thought process, named the Categorical Imperative, that helps a person determine what their duties are and what actions should be done and what actions should not be done. Kant strongly believes that morality is derived from rationality and this is evident in his Categorical Imperative. Simply put, Kant believes what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. There is no gray areas in this thought process. The First Formulation in his Categorical Imperatives states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant).” A maxim is an idea and rule that actions and reasons are in accordance with universal laws. This means that a person is not allowed to do something that they are not willinging to allow everyone else to do or they are not willinging to do in all actions. In an example where I may lie to a friend and tell her that I like her haircut even if I think it looks terrible and do so to protect her feelings, I am making the case that lying is universally okay in all cases. According to the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, I would have to be okay with lying in all situations. Even a situation when a witness protects a rapist from going to jail by lying would have to be okay by me according to Kant.

this is an example that has been used for many years although let me put this into Kant’s theoretical perspective. Someone goal is to help the poor although they do not have much themselves, so in order to get to y which is the goal an person must reason and commit x , x being he steals money off a wealthy family in order to help the needy leading him to his outcome y . Although this would be considered immoral in the categorical imperative as it is breaking 2 of the laws 1. Principal of universality and 2. The principle of humanity as an End never as a mean as he is taking money to help someone ; although of these are morally alright to do according to the hypothetical imperative.

Kant opens with discussion of how philosophy contains three sciences; logic, ethics, and physics. Throughout the entire section of reading, I found myself to be struggling quite a lot (which is not such a surprise since we were told in advance that Kant can be very difficult to comprehend). I found myself slightly understanding aspects only to be thrown off just a little later and somehow end up lost by the end. However, there was a part that I found to be very interesting (that I could actually understand)! This was when he discusses specialization; how one person cannot do everything, but rather each person specializes in one aspect of the whole and works to make that part perfect. My question then is if this could be related to the

Utilitarians, in the vein of Mill, would strongly oppose the Kantian refusal to lie due to the consequentialist emphasis of utilitarian moral theory. Instead, they would probably contend that lying as a means of serving the end of protecting one’s friend would result in greater happiness and utility, particularly in this scenario where it would serve the interests of two out of three of the individuals involved. Furthermore, a utilitarian would likely suggest that refusing to lie within this scenario results in a refusal to preserve life and happiness, and thus exemplifies the inhumane consequences of Kant’s moral theory that inadvertently enables evil while

In the first part "Analytic of the beautiful", Kant elucidates the judgment of taste. Kant examines the mechanics in distinguishing whether something is beautiful or not and arrives to the realization that beauty is purely intuitive. The judgment of beauty relies not on cognition and reason but on an entirely different aspect .Then, whether an object is beautiful or not depends on the sensation of pleasure or pain the subject undergoes through exposure to it. Kant deduces that the judgment of beauty is subjective; the subject is the primary variable in the equation. The empirical value of the object doesn 't matter when it 's being judged, only the sensation it radiates in the subject determines its aesthetic status.

During the 18th century, the world was just reeling from the philosophical teachings of David Hume, when Immanuel Kant—Father of Western philosophy—entered the picture. Kant’s “central question was whether metaphysics—as the science of being itself—objects as they exist fundamentally and independently of our perceptions and interpretations, is possible” (Richards 1). It is said that Kant was sent to rescue philosophy from the hands of Hume. After consulting Hume’s works, however, Kant came to the “conclusion that metaphysics was not possible, but that we humans do it anyways” (Richards 1) So if metaphysics doesn’t exist, how do we create it anyways? Did Kant save Metaphysics, or bring it to an end? For Kant, the crux of metaphysics comes down to the viability of two varying explanations of gaining knowledge—Rationalism v. Empiricism.

The understanding itself, in regard to representations and objects, is the paramount focus of Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804), Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787). Although there is a manifold of philosophical definitions of what the critique of pure reason is defined as, this essay will assist in alleviating the flux that occurs when comprehending the meaning of Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason. After reading most of Kant’s critique, in relation to Metaphysics, the critique of pure reason is a way of making that branch of philosophy a true possibility, then an actual science. An argument can be made that one definition formulates a foundation for

During the course of this essay I will attempt to distinguish between the meaning of the beautiful and the meaning of the sublime that are offered to the reader in the work of Immanuel Kant, the ‘Critique of Judgement’. My reasoning for choosing this particular question is my enthusiasm for the works of Immanuel Kant, not just the ‘Critique of Judgement’, but also his other renowned publications. His Kantian ethics, which revolve around the idea of a duty to moral law, is a concept which interested me greatly. For this reason, I wanted to further explore the writings of Kant, which involved studying his work on aesthetics. I will begin this essay I will first give a very brief outline of what Kant discusses at the beginning of the first book

When Immanuel Kant discusses his thoughts on the aesthetic experience in his third critique, The Critique of Judgment, he takes a different route than many philosophers have. Kant doesn’t begin with art itself, or even what qualifies art as beautiful. He is interested instead, as the title of his third critique might give away, the experience of the beholder when they are exposed to beauty, and how our judgment of beauty is formulated. He can’t tell you what is beautiful, but he does offer a method with which to explain the experience of beauty to yourself. He discusses what happens to us when we have the feeling of “this is beautiful”, whether it is inspired by a natural sunset, or a painting of one. Kant believes the beautiful things we experience, whether natural or artistic, exist as evidence that we belong in the world. In a similar sense, our experience of nature’s sublime initially alienates us from the world, but ends up empowering us. His analysis of the aesthetic experience seems innocent enough at first, but culminates into an explosive conclusion with consequences that seriously challenge many philosophical ideas that extend further than the critique of art or aesthetic experience. For Kant, there are four different dimensions to our aesthetic experience, or judgment of taste, which occur within the experiencer as a unified experience. The first of these dimensions is a quality in what we are experiencing. When we have the experience of something as truly