Philosophy: Emmanuel Kant

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.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

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

Immanuel Kant was a famous philosopher whose philosophical influences impacted almost every new philosophical idea, theory, concept etc. In a sense, he was considered the central face of contemporary philosophy. Kant spent his whole life in Russia. Starting out as a tutor, to then a professor, he lectured about everything; from geography to obviously philosophy. In his early life, he was raised to emphasize faith and religious feelings over reason and theological principles. As he got older though, that position changed. It then became that knowledge is necessarily confided and within the bounds of reason. Now with this in mind, Kant claims many different things that derive from this. There are many different parts and aspects to it which is why it relates to almost every philosophical idea out there. Kant referred his epistemology as “critical philosophy” since all he wanted to do was critique reason and sort our legitimate claims of reasons from illegitimate ones. His epistemology says that we can have an objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world, and that science cannot tell us about reality. He claims science cannot tell us anything because it only tells us about the world as it is perceived, whether it’s based on measures, manipulations, experiments and so on. Kant says that we all have knowledge; that the mind and experience work together and that we construct and gain this knowledge by both reason and experience.

In my last project I talked about the urgent issue of bringing in CBD only medical marijuana items across state lines into Georgia. The dilemma was that the families and patients who urgently needed these products were subject to arrest because the products they obtained were brought over Alabama and neighboring states who haven’t passed the laws yet. This ties in with morals because the illegality of bringing in a harmless product to Georgia to treat little kids with seizures and much more is absurd and subject to ethical debate in my opinion. My own view is that it should not be illegal to transport CBD products over state lines if it is for the benefit and well-being of people with severe illness. Immanuel Kant and James Mill’s theories of the categorical imperative and utilitarianism each can be applied to this ethical debate in varying ways.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), was a German philosopher who today is viewed as the most persuasive mastermind of the Enlightenment time and one of the best Western thinkers of all times. His works, particularly those on epistemology (which is the study of what differentiates belief from opinion), feel and morals impacted later philosophers, including contemporary ones.

“If you do what you need ,your surviving. If you do what you want, your living”.

What would you do if given the opportunity to take one unwilling person’s life to save five other people’s lives? Would you do it? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would give you strongly contrasting opinions. A person should not kill another to benefit five others. It would be a wrong thing to do, but Mill would disagree. Kant believed that good intentions count and that the morality of an action is determined by the intentions behind it rather than its consequences. Kant says that the consequences are irrelevant to assessments of moral worth, which contrasts sharply with Mill’s utilitarianism.

Immanuel Kant (1731) was commonly known as the opponent of the utilitarianism. Kant believed that there are certain actions such as the murder, theft and lying that were prohibited regardless of the associated happiness that the action would bring. According to Kantian, there exist two questions, which human beings need to ask themselves before acting. One needs to rationalize, if everyone can act as he/ she proposes to act. If any case one gets no as an answer then such individual should not perform the intended act. Furthermore one also needs to consider whether his / her actions respect the human being goals or just merely using them for own selfish ambitions.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Age of Enlightenment dominated European life. This movement emphasized the use of human reason to revolutionize the political, religious, and philosophical ways of European life. Furthermore, various philosophers and writers during this era led this movement, including Immanuel Kant. For Kant, enlightenment is defined as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.” He blamed society for forcing ideas onto people, as well as the individual for remaining captive to the thoughts of others. The point of enlightenment, in Kant’s opinion, was for individuals to emerge from the darkness and break the chains of bondage that society had put on its citizens. The following is a further explanation of what enlightenment

However, there seems to be a foundational flaw in Kant’s logic that he uses to justify synthetic a priori statements, like the ones from above, that defeat the argument. The issue sprouts from how to think about a term's definition. Being true by definition is a quality of a priori knowledge and also analytic statements, but Kant, in a sense, is attempting to argue that not all things true by definition are analytic knowledge. Consider what a definition really is, where it originated, and how it was derived. A definition of a word describes it in detail and was created, whether it was your own personal spin on a term’s definition a basic dictionary explanation that someone at some point crafted, definitions are all subjectively man-made. Looking

I will begin by saying that according to Kant, consequences doesn’t have any connection with our deeds: right or wrong. Morality requires us to do the right things in life: it is a command known as the imperative. This, indeed, forces me to follow what Kant said: doing the good deeds ignoring the thought of what will be the result. This ethics of Kant rather wants me to save the lives in the ship of my other nine cruise worker. This dilemma forced me to think about my morals in life of being good.

What is moral philosophy? Moral philosophy refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with ethics, in other words, "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?". Although there are two apparent options to choose from (the ‘right’ one, and the ‘wrong’ one), morals and ethics are more complicated than what we perceive it to be at first glance. For example, who decides which of the two is the more morally ‘correct’ option? What one perceives to be the ‘right’ option, may be an incorrect option to another person. So which person is morally correct? We can now clearly see how subjective morals and ethics can be. Although you may now come to the conclusion that there is no right option, and that the morally correct option is simply an opinion, various renowned philosophers have set out on a mission to identify the best method to determine the most morally correct action.

People were lost. They did not know where and what to follow. Therefore, many philosophers came up with ideas to convince people to live ¨better¨. Rationalism related with the overview of mathematical approaches into philosophy during the period by the major rationalist figures such as Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza developed people´s way of thinking in many different ways. Rationalism is perspective which engages the rational and deductive reason, an opposite structure from personal experience or teachings as the foundation of knowledge or rationalization. Therefore, the concept of rationalism relies on the knowledge that everyday life has a rational configuration in that all aspects of it can remain through facts and knowledge. Proverbs

As with many philosophers worth studying, a common theme present amongst René Descartes, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant is the fact that all three philosophers challenged the traditional ways of thinking about philosophy respective to their eras. In certain aspects, all three of these philosophers also grappled with understanding, discovering, and logically explaining the power of the mind to shape whole truths. From Descartes’ foundational work with methodological doubt to Kant’s contribution to previous philosophical concepts such as synthetic judgments, all three men made undeniably valuable advances in epistemological thought despite the occasional controversies associated with their forward thinking during their time.