Kant's Ontological Meditation

Two men represent their communities in different ways. Joe Louis represented the Black community in a boxing match. For instance, the boxing match between Louis and Carnera, was important to the Black community because Louis, a black boxer, represented them when he fought a white boxer. In the book I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Maya Angelou writes, “My race groaned. It was our people falling…A Black boy whipped and maimed.” (135). At this moment, Louis was almost robbed of his title. This would have been another injustice on the Black community, the referee signaled the contender to stop, and he continued hitting Louis (135). Also, not only were the Black community supporting one of there own, but wanted the sense of defeating the White

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.

Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or

In contrast to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism, Kant was more focused on intent and action itself. This leads into one of Kantian ethics main ideals; you mustn’t treat another human being as a means to an end. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI) is a deontological theory, which relied heavily on his belief that humans are all capable of reason in the same manner, on the same level (A Brief Summary of Kant 's Categorical Imperative, 2012). Kant recognized 2 kinds of moral ‘imperatives’, a hypothetical imperative (what must be done to achieve a desired result) and Categorical imperatives (how one must act irrespective of one’s end goal/desires). For Kant, all moral duties were considered to be categorical, and should apply to everyone universally. Kant believes that truthfulness is the formal duty of everyone, regardless of what disadvantage it may cause to yourself or another (Kant, 1994). He illustrates this quite well by using his categorical imperative, saying that if all people were to lie, then all contracts and laws would lose their legitimacy. Kant also went on to point out that if we were to lie, even from a place of good intention, it is impossible to control the outcome(s) and we may be responsible for whatever comes from it (Kant, 1994). However if we were to tell the truth then we have upheld our duty and as such can shoulder no blame for any consequences.

According to Kant, existence is not a predicate/property that a thing can either possess or lack. He claims that when people say that God exists they are not saying that there is a God who possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people say that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence. They would then both be affirming and denying God’s existence at the same time. Kant suggests that to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. For example, as long as there is a ‘Romeo-who-exists’, there is also a ‘Romeo’. And, as long as there is a ‘Romeo’, there is also a ‘Romeo-who-exists’. Adding ‘exists’ has in effect added nothing. (Chapman, 2016) Kant claims that it is impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not. They are both the same. A God that exists is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. A God that does not exist is also all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. According to Kant, this shows that Anselm’s ontological argument

Kant came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to the ontological theory. There are several people who use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life. The fourth objection is Kant’s criticism. The argument assumes that existence is part of the concept of the thing (predicate). One of Kant’s reasons for objection is that the statement “God does not exists” is absurd. In the ontological argument some of the statements challenge themselves. The denial of something is not an opposition. Therefore the refusal of God’s existence is not self-contradictory. Since the ontological is set on God’s non-existence being self-contradictory, it is not sound (CITE>>>). Another argument Kant has is that existence is not a predicate. A predicate is something that adds to the essence of a thing (CITE>>>). The idea of something existing does not change our concept of the thing itself. So according to Kant, existence is not a predicate. Kant strongly destroys Anslems first argument and indirectly also ruins the argument on the necessary existence though his criticism. He pummels and successfully attacks the Cartesian version that in order for there to be a “superior being”, existence must be predicate of God. However, the argument is not strong enough to rmain and we can say that Anslem failed to show the fool that God exist. The second part of the argument still has

a dress - which does not in fact suit her - just to make her feel

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

"The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt."

The Meditations on First Philosophy gives us with an assumed evidence for the existence of God those progresses from the existence of an idea of an unlimited existence in the human mind—an idea of God—to the being of God himself. Insofar as we have an idea of an unlimited existence, an idea with “infinite independent reality”, we can reasonably ask when it arrived to us. The only thinkable reason of this impression, prerogatives Descartes, is an countless existence, explicitly, God. The manifestation of correct this knowledge in the proof is crucial. In element, Descartes continues that any such fundamental proof for God’s existence fatefully trusts on this idea.it performs to myself that all these proofs originated on his exceptional belongings are reducible to a single one; and also that they are incomplete if we do not add to them the impression which we must of God

The defenders of the ontological argument have a comeback though. They say that the person who rejects the existence of God has not grasped the concept of God correctly because existence is part of the concept of God. In conclusion, the person does not understand what he is denying. But Kant comes back with an even stronger argument. As we already know, existence is not a first order property, it just says that something is actually there. In Kant's own words, "'Being' is obviously not a real predicate: that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves." Kant's argument makes perfect sense. Let us use a triangle to prove his point. Say that right now I have the concept of a triangle in my head. A triangle is a geometrical figure with three angles. Under the condition that I have the concept of the triangle in my head, it necessarily follows that I must have the idea

Explain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his “Metaphysical Exposition of Space” (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian concept) or any independent relation among real things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In other words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian?

Could you imagine a world where one could get away with crime and murder without even having anything tested or examined as evidence? Well thanks to forensic scientist that won’t happen. A forensic scientist’s job is to examine the evidence and data from a crime scene. In order to become a forensic analyst there is a lot of training required (according to forensics analyst.com) you could spend up to 7 years training to become a forensic scientist. The field of forensics and crime is very overwhelming in both good and bad ways (according to work.chron.com). By becoming a forensic scientist I will be able to help others and use my investigation skills, and it will allow me to open my mind to new things.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

The contemporary world prides itself on being more technologically advanced than any other recorded society in the history of humankind. One of the most prominent channels that technology has been able to assert its influence is in the digitization of every perspective of human life. Most of the human activities have adopted a technology; a move normally referred to as digitizing, in their operation. Education has not been left behind. There has been an incorporation of the digital process of learning at all levels of education. The process has a very large influence on the field of education today.