The Comparable and Contrastable Philosophies of Kierkegaard and Kant
In this paper, I will investigate the comparable and contrasting views of Soren Kierkegaard and Immanuel Kant. Their extraordinary journeys towards the meaning of morality and ethics is riveting, spiritual, universal, and in many ways, incredibly different. My conclusion is that though there are aspects which bind their theories together, ultimately both men possess different understandings of what morality is and how an individual ought to be moral. Kierkegaard, while exemplifying a less structured philosophical outline embeds his theory too heavily on Christian faith. This makes it unapproachable beyond a surface point with individuals of a different religious belief. On the other hand, Kant exemplifies an extremely strict structure, less associated with religion, and inclusive of universality, reason and equality. I will show how both Soren Kierkegaard and Immanuel Kant’s theories on morality contribute to the teaching of philosophy by comparing and contrasting their views. Ultimately, this paper is intended to illustrate the superiority in the writings of Immanuel Kant and his philosophical theory.
Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, credited as the “father of religious Existentialism”, formed his philosophical beliefs around Christianity bridging religiosity and morality. The ethics which emerged from the teachings of Kierkegaard circulated around his religious upbringing. In Kierkegaard’s
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.
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.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different
Soren Kierkegaard is a Danish philosopher and theologian who attempted to deliver his existentialist point of views. Specifically, Kierkegaard emphasizes the need for humans to take responsibility for their actions and go beyond their “socially imposed identities” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). According to his earliest major work “Either/Or,” he suggests humans are reluctantly stuck between two spheres of life that they must choose between: aesthetic or ethical. He delves into what constitutes a life as either and suggests the practicalities associated with each choice. He stresses the importance of being responsible for the truth and living according to the truth we’ve committed to. In addition, the existential choice can be
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.
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.
The phenomenon of morality has fascinated people for centuries. Since the development of this phenomenon, humans have longed to discover the good and bad in both their actions and themselves. Naturally, countless philosophers have struggled to answer this question of morality. Although none have successfully found a definite answer, they have exhausted an abundance of ways to attack the question. One philosopher, in particular, by the name of Immanuel Kant, attempted to determine the morality of actions by focusing on their nature. As Kant developed his theory, his approach toward proving moral knowledge soon became widely known as Kantian deontology.
Although remembered by many as foremost a philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard was quite the theologian in his time, with his own unique approach to theology and Christianity in general. In a time that was ruled by objective methodology in every aspect of acquiring and summarizing knowledge, Kierkegaard sought to bring Christianity back into the realm of the subjective, thereby making it much more interactive and personal. What this paper focuses on is Kierkegaard’s requirement of sacrifice that all Christians must be willing to make in order to be considered true Christians, followed by both a critique and a praise for his contagious notion.
7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.
This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.
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 and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.
In this essay, I will try to summarize, analyze and discuss several pages of Søren Kierkegaard’s Training in Christianity. I will try to focus on his approach to sacred history, a general Christian history and Christianity, which he discusses in this work in relation to faith in God. In other parts of this essay I will attempt also to relate these pages of his work to some key ideas of Kierkegaard’s theology and philosophy and support this with some concrete quotations from the text. In the end I will very briefly compare different philosophies of Hegel and Kierkegaard and try to relate Kierkegaard’s work to a few topics, which
This analysis seeks to explicate the fundamental issues in Kant’s philosophy, which include duty and reason. The examination of the movie Gone Baby Gone is viewed in the context of morality, as it shows an escapade of child abduction. While doing so, one of the fundamental questions to address in this submission is the distinction between what is good, and that, which is morally right. In addressing this question, the maxims by Emmanuel Kant form the important part of this study.