Kant Equality

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Kant’s stance leaned more towards understanding morality. He stated that you cannot go to religion for morality, due to it being the death of morality itself. Moreover, Kant sheds light on the imperfections of the Bible. He viewed the God of the Bible in a different perspective, calling him an arbitrary tyrant. A god that commands his followers to kill, to sacrifice, and one that damns people to hellfire. These statements by Kant led people to think that religion altogether must be eliminated and people should focus more on reason rather than revelation.

His argument is also trying to make you question what will happen if we do allow homosexual marriages. Will we then have to allow fathers to marry their daughters? Will we be going to the weddings of two sisters before we know it? Bennett believes that altering the conventional definition of marriage would change many things. According to Bennett, it would wipe away all the rules that dictate how we act. It would also send mixed signals about sexuality to people, especially to young children.

While some states have began to embrace the civil rights of all American people and allowing both hetero- and homo-sexual couples to marry, some states have done quite the opposite and banned same sex marriages and unions. Not all Americans feel so strongly about legalizing same sex marriage. Those against same sex marriage believe marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. However, that has not always been true, as explained in the beginning of this paper, the ancient people commonly wed the same gender and them and also had same sex sexual relations (ProCon.org). In fact in the first century Nero the Emperor of Rome married at least two of his lovers who were men (Chastain 19.) It was not until Christianity became a wide spread religion that sodomy and homosexuality became immoral. Those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage also believe that same sex marriage will threaten the institution of marriage. Marriages since 2011 have been at a new low, with only 52 percent of adults being married (Yen). However gays are fighting for the right to marry who they love, while heterosexual couples take that for granted. Divorce rates are currently lingering around 40-50% that is without gays being able to be married in many states. By allow homosexuals to marry their significant others, it will allow for a stronger bond and maybe bring back life into the deteriorating world of marriage. In states that do allow for same sex marriages, their divorce rates are

He states his contempt for these views and states a detailed reason why gay marriage makes sense. He makes it known that he feels that gay marriage should be viewed as normal and gay marriage should be held to a similar standard. He feels that this union would help in domesticating men and make them reliable caregivers. In his article, he concludes by articulating that he is gay and would be ashamed if other homosexual individuals would not push for their right to marry (Rauch, p. 23).

Though Kant is well known for his unorthodox views on religion and for having argued that God’s existence cannot be proven, he was most famous for his theory known as the Categorical Imperative (Right Thing 59). This theory contends that one should “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Right Thing 60). In simpler words, only act upon that which can be applied to everyone. For instance, the Categorical Imperative finds murder to be wrong because if everyone were to commit murder we would all be dead, and thus it cannot be

Another reason against homosexuality is given in the Talmud by Bar Kapparah, who claims that it means to’eh atah ba (“you go astray because of it”). Both Tosefot and the Asheri (medieval commentators) say that a man will leave his wife and family to search for a relationship with another man. This means that homosexuality threatens the Jewish family life which consists of marriage and children. Heterosexuality is regarded as normality for Jews; homosexuality is an obstruction to that normality.

Kantianism is a moral theory that derives universal, absolute rules of morality by starting with the human qualities of autonomy and rationality. Immanuel Kant, the creator of the theory, believed that this combination of autonomy and rationality has infinite value. [1] As such, Kant argued that utilitarian viewpoints are irrational because they may ignore this infinite value by aiming to increase the happiness of many through the sacrificing of the happiness of a few, thus treating people merely as means to an ends. [1] Kant therefore argued that morality should not be about measuring outcomes by pleasure or pain, but by a good will. In fact, he believed that morality could not be achieved outside of the qualities

     Kant is strictly a non-consequentialist philosopher, which means that he believes that a person's choices should have nothing to do with the desired outcome, but instead mankind simply goes about doing good because it is morally correct. Kant theorizes that moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge and that reason by itself can reveal the basic principles of morality.

Immanuel Kant is one of the most important and hardest philosophers in history. Kant’s thinking of philosophy is based on human autonomy, the understanding of human and their reasons. An action of moral worth is not the aftermath by the action, but the motive behind it. He argues that the only motives for these reasons are from universal principles, leading to his famous statement of categorical imperative: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” With this statement, we can understand Kant’s beliefs on the nature of synthetic a priori, the five formulae (formulations) he created, his argument on sexual harassment, and how rational moral laws on race and gender discrimination with real life issues in society today.

When broken down Kant is appealing to both his thesis and his antithesis; he is agreeing with both. Kant agrees that humans are beings of nature and therefore they follow the rules of nature, but he also is accepting his thesis by saying that they are free. “But in the former case reason is the cause of these laws of nature, and therefore free; in the latter, the effects follow according to mere natural laws of sensibility” (Prolegomena). Instead of rejecting the laws of nature and saying that humans are free of all ties, he is agreeing that certain things do govern the way in which humans act. Furthermore, he suggest that “Freedom is therefore no hindrance to natural law in appearances: neither does this law abrogate the freedom of the practical use of reason, which is connected with things in themselves, as determining grounds” (Prolegomena). Regardless of natural law humans are free and neither one interferes with the other.

The moral law is acting morally all the time and for the right reasons. The moral law is a law that can be optionally obeyed; to obey the moral law is to consciously use your personal freedom to do the right things. This runs counter to behavior as a result of desires or impulses; the ability to follow the moral law is what to Kant, separates us from animals. This view of human rights implies that the rights of mankind is superior to that of animals. To Kant, other species of animals do not have the ability to follow a moral law and thus, they do not stand equal to humans. The source of human rights in Kant’s eyes could discount some handicapped people, because they may not have the mental capacity or ability to act in a way that follows the moral law. Personally, I disagree with his views. They are way to strict and discount the notion that there are plenty of circumstances in which doing something that isn't necessarily considered moral may be the right course of action. Every situation has different circumstances and plenty of situations arise where doing something that shouldn't be done all the time, may be the most fitting course of action. Take for example the epidemic that is human overpopulation. It is already a major problem, but it is safe to say that it is only going to get worse. A time is going to come where it is apparent that our cannot sustain the amount

In the earlier years back in the 1920’s there have been a lot of talk of the marriage laws and how it should be. To some they feel that marriage should be a covenant bond between a man and woman because that’s the way God intended it to be according to the bible. But for others, they feel as long as they are happy with whoever they are with, it really should not matter who they are married too whether it is someone from the same sex or someone from the opposite sex. According to some, marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our day.