Kant's View On Reason

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Kant credited both empiricism and rationalism movements. He believes that they both contributed to human’s knowledge and should not reject neither one of them. So, he keeps some parts of those principles and defines empiricism a posteriori knowledge and rationalism as a priori knowledge. His goal is to explain and then justify the possibility of scientific knowledge.

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.

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.

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.

In “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason” Emmanuel Kant expresses his philosophical views on morality and religion. Kant believed that people tend to stray away from the morally just path and give in to evil temptations, often putting our own personal interests and gains first. Because of humanity's natural tendendencies to give in to sin, Kant believes that human beings are morally evil by nature. However he does find a solution to the problem of evil and sin by reinterpreting Christianity as a whole, and the role of Jesus Christ, who Kant believed was a model of true moral behaviour. For Kant, the battle between good and evil is a clash between moral ideals and immoral motives.

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

Kant’s approach to philosophy begins with the clear distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal world. Phenomenal being the world in which we perceive it through experiences while the noumenal world is entirely separate from our perceptions. For instance, the sky is blue. Regardless of whether or not there exists any being capable of seeing or understanding that the sky is blue, it remains so. This is an analytic truth about the noumenal world that does not change.

Kant claims that humans try to combine all their knowledge into a consistent and unified system for reasoning and understanding. Kant develops on the elements of reasoning and understanding by referring to hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are an individuals actions done through a certain sequence in order to achieve something. For example, if an individual wants to get their Associates degree before graduating from Bakersfield College, he or she must understand, it is mandatory to pass at least 60 units of classes to get a degree. Categorical imperatives are doing certain actions due to an individual's "pure" practical reasoning, even if the action does not satisfy his or her desires. For instance,

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

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who took ideas from the empiricists and rationalists to create is own view of how humans come to knowledge. Essentially updating and blending science and logic based knowledge. Kant was a rationalist, yet had empirical views much like John Locke and David Hume. Kant agreed with Hume and Locke on experience. Yet, Kant developed a priori idea of how humans learn to learn that was very different from Locke and Hume.

He says anything can be in the external world, God, cause and effect, morality, free will but we can never get to know it. The reason why is because although we cannot have knowledge of these things, the moral law (which he calls it) leads to a belief in them (a kind of rational faith). He says reason shows to prove that free will cannot be an effective part of the world because it is deterministic. He justifies his argument by using the categorical imperative. Kant argued that every event in the natural world has a “determining ground,” that is, a cause. So, all human actions, as well as natural events, themselves

After immersing in the selected readings for this week reaction paper, I found myself with mixed emotions regarding the state of enlightenment. I feel as if this theme is something that had started few centuries ago but yet not accomplished nothing with the passing of the years. Is it something that would ever be accomplished in masses? Or maybe, are we just not capable of ever reaching that state? I certainly feel we have come a long way despite the range of obstacles along the path.

Kant refused the arguments from the empiricists, and kept his statement of reason itself is organized with practices of gained experience and classifications that provides a phenomenal and rational configuration to any possible item of empirical experience. Kant’s famous statement of this duty says, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724 in Königsberg, Prussia where he stayed all of his life (which is now Kaliningrad, Russia). Immanuel Kant was one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western Philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have brought an impact on most philosophical movement that followed him.