Kant's Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Purpose

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.

All of the above, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy. He was of the view that human beings can determine and manage to live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without assistance of anyone else, even without any divine support or intervention (Guyer). In this paper we will discuss the extent to which Kant's view of human nature provides a sustainable ground work for his views on the relationship between nations. In order to determine this, different opinions of Kant will be discussed regarding what his views about the human nature and how he compared it with the nations or states.

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

panopticism. He believes that it takes away one 's individuality from fear of societal backlash.

Kant focuses on the importance of dignity which is the quality that is rendered by an individual’s overt actions. Additionally, internal joy is constituted by how one treats another as a human, not an implement used for one’s self-preserved motive.

It occurs in everyday life, how there are different types of people interpret their lives and the lives of others. We start off by how culture effects how conscious. In the essay by Annie Dillard, shows an exponential example on a game that she used to play throughout her childhood. For example, this game would start off by Annie Dillard hiding pennies inside sidewalks. After this, she would draw enormous arrows towards where she hides the pennies around and inside the sidewalks, Annie concluded from this that most people do not stop and waste their time on picking up a simple penny. Dillard says, “The World is fairly studded and strewn with pennies cast broadside from a generous hand. But- and this is the point- who gets excited by a mere penny?” (17.) This quote taken from her essay, explains how Dillard had such a different conscious thought about this game towards someone who just seen the penny. In other words, most people had a susceptible mind towards something, will more than likely be inflicted by their

Through an analysis of human characteristics, Immanuel Kant concludes progress is driven by humanity’s innate behavior of contempt for one another, which he refers to as antagonism. In Kant’s essay “On Universal History”, his fourth thesis states, “The means employed by Nature to bring about the development of all the capacities of men is their antagonism in society, so far as this is, in the end, the cause of a lawful order among men.” By this, Kant means that man finds himself in mutual opposition with his peers, but this opposition, as deemed by nature, is the force driving mankind’s development. According to Kant, man has a conflicting, natural tendency to both associate and isolate himself from others. The former because society gives him the ability to feel he is more developed than his individual capacities allow for, and the latter is a consequence of his

From this view, Kant takes the perspective that ethical free-will is a danger to civil and social order. Absent the categorical imperative, man is left

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Free will must be a will that gives itself autonomy. According to the formula of autonomy, every rational agent is universal and no experience can determine universality. A rational agent may ‘will’ to act a certain way, but because they are rational beings free from sensual temptations, their ‘will’ is what imperfectly rational people ‘ought’ to act. Therefore, a rational agent’s ‘will’ becomes a universal law in which people guided by empirical experiences should abide. A rational agent is only autonomous when one can make judgments not by external “impulsion,” but by “pure practical reason.” Just as Kant states good will is a will “good in itself,” he believes a rational agent is “an end in itself” who becomes the author of the universal law which he will obey and the rest will follow. If a person can act as if one is a law-maker of a “kingdom of ends” who can be responsible for the universal law of one’s people,

Kant’s approach to animals and the treatment of them is examined. His approach has a basis of egocentric ideals which can be found, and should be left in, an earlier era. First, I explain his second categorical imperative and how it is applicable to humans but excludes animals. I argue Kant’s second categorical imperative in regards to it only being applicable to humans through his definition of “humanity”. Second, I investigate how Kant believes we should treat animals and his justification for theorizing it. I reason Kant’s assumption that animals are not rational or unable to be self-conscious. Third, I look at Kant’s underlining assumptions of animals and the natural world around him. I allege Kant’s assumptions on animals may lead to environmental degradation. Through this paper I aim to disprove Kant’s assumptions about animals and how his views may perpetuate further damage to the environment.

Immanuel Kant is widely-regarded as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time, with his teachings having more influence on other contemporary thinkers than any other philosopher of the 18th century. Fighting against the governmental and monarchical constraints of the time, Kant began his work by maintaining that all humans are free beings, who out to think autonomously, free from the dictates of external authority (SEP, 2011, pp.1). Kant

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each

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