Kant's View Of Reasoning

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

The concept of freedom has long been a popular tenet for philosophers to explore. From ancient Greek origins to the present day, many individuals have discussed the importance of freedom and the role it plays within society in an effort to define its relationship to the human condition. Two philosophers that have studied freedom in depth are John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Both philosophers viewed freedom as playing a major role in society; however, they conceptualized it in different ways, particularly in relation to its role with the nation. Perhaps the most notable aspect of these stances is Kant’s definition of the relationship between freedom, reason, and morality.

He argues that reason dominates human, each person has their own, different and elementary idea and they try to improve that idea. Kant thinks that nobody can reach absolute reality with limited thinking. Reason is not appropriate for thinking limitless. Also, he points that, human being was born with natural abilities, those abilities direct our point of view towards objects. Kant separates between a priori and a posterior

“A transcendental principle is one by which we think the universal a priori condition which alone things can become objects of our cognition in general[.]”

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

In the critique of pure reason, Kant states, “All alternations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect.”1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak readings and strong readings. The weak readings basically suggest that Kant's statement only refer to “All events have a cause”; however, the strong readings suggest that “the Second Analogy is committed not just to causes, but to causal laws as well.”2 To understand the difference between the readings, it is helpful to notice Kant's distinction between empirical laws of nature and universal transcendental principles. Empirical laws have an empirical element that universal transcendental principles cannot imply. On the other hand, empirical experiences require necessity to become a law, accordingly, “the transcendental laws “ground” the empirical laws by supplying them with their necessity.”3In this paper, according to this distinction, I first, argue that the second analogy supports the weak reading, second, show how in Prolegomena he uses the concept of causation in a way that is compatible to the strong reading, and third, investigate whether this incongruity is solvable.

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

Premature birth; as characterized by Merriam-Webster word reference may be, "the end of a pregnancy after, joined by, bringing about, or nearly taken after by the passing of the incipient organism or hatchling. This is the meaning of fetus removal of which I will survey its moral status. After Roe versus Swim, the Supreme Court at the same time chose that ladies have the privilege of security under the fourteenth amendment; making it adequate to prematurely end a pregnancy inside the primary trimester (Vaughn 119). The fundamental contention on fetus removal is truly a civil argument on human life, and whether it has an incentive from the snapshot of origination. Every single human life is made out of inborn esteem, and has the privilege to

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either

Again, the reading from Kant proves difficult to read. However, the part discussing examples of duties I found to be quite interesting. In relation to the last example when it mentions that all human beings should help others in need, I came to question if people actually carry out this duty throughout all aspects of their life? I also questioned when people do assist others in need, if they actively think and register their actions as a duty since as human beings we have a moral responsibility to help others.

Experimentation in humans wouldn't be ethical to Kant. If we take into account the four categorical imperatives, which are the basis of Kant’s moral theory, experimentation on humans will violate the principle of humanity; treating a person as a merely means to an end and not as an end to themselves. Now, I haven't used the word “never” because I think that Kant’s moral theory would approve experimentation as long as the interest of the experiment is of interest to the participants involved. For example, if I am a cancer patient and a treatment that hasn't been tested has a probability of an eighty percent chance to improve my current situation, I would definitely participate. This hypothetical but real world situation that I just stated would

Here I hope to reflect Kant’s intentions for each premise in the order presented above. (P1): I am conscious of my experience as determined in time. P1 can be interpreted a few ways. Dicker in his first interpretation takes his second premise to mean, (P2): I am aware that I have representations in experience that occur in temporal succession (Dicker 195). In other words, I am not only conscious of my experiences; I am also in a position where I recognize the order of my experiences presented by my own mental representations. Ordering representations is only possible if these representations are determined in time.

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.