1. What is the Kantian idea of Europe? What relationship is there between the Dutch and Kantian ideas? Why was peace so crucial at this point in history? What does this have to do with the idea of Europe? On what basis could peace be founded? Does Tully agree with Kant’s claims that his idea of Europe is “universal” and “culturally impartial”? Why or why not? What are Kant’s blind spots? Kant’s idea of “progress” is grounded in a “stages” or a “teleological” view of history. What is a teleological view of history? What are some problems with this view? What kinds of assumptions about other cultures does it lead to? How are colonialism and imperialism related to this kind of thinking? How did Herder 's view of history and of the nation challenge Kant’s? What is the relationship between culture and identity according Herder? According to Kant? What is Tully’s solution to Kant’s limitations?
The Kantian idea of Europe is all about a federation, which means “a federation of independent states” in Europe, and it is mainly a “federal idea of Europe,” which is more cosmopolitan. There is some sort of relationship between the Dutch and Kantian ideas, which is about being a federation that the Dutch idea of Europe was about commercial and trade related, although the Kantian one was about being a federation of European states under one culture. In addition to this, “The Glorious Revolution of 1688–9 has traditionally been viewed as, first and foremost, a political event.”
Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, main goal was to discover the answer to how human beings could be genuinely good and kind, apart from the expectations of traditional religions. Immanuel Kant was born in the year 1724 to parents who were extremely modest. His father was a saddle maker who never made an excess amount of money. He was very thankful for his family and all things God had him blessed with. Kant got a late start in his studies, unlike David Hume. It was not until he was in his fifties that he became a professor that acquired a full salary and received a considerable amount of respect. Kant’s family held him to high standards and made it appoint to practice their religious beliefs. As Kant grew in age and knowledge he did not have any orthodox religious beliefs, but still saw the role that religion had played in his parent’s ability to deal with their hardships and blessing and how useful religion could be in creating a society where everyone was united.
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.
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.
As the Glorious Revolution (GR) of 1688 gave us a glimpse into various early Enlightenment ideals occurring in Europe, the Glorious Revolution could be considered part of the Enlightenment. Both the Glorious Revolution and the Enlightenment, in Europe, drastically exemplify each other, and share similar philosophies, linking them together, therefore helping to further pose the claim that the Glorious Revolution can be considered part of the Enlightenment, and played a role in it. Ideals such as rights for citizens and the protection from the government, religion and religious toleration, and shifting of power, specifically the decline of the power of Monarchs. These, as well as many other themes, contribute to the Enlightenment. Not only
The ideals of the Enlightenment are the basis of our democracies and universities in the 21st century: belief in reason, science, skepticism, secularism, and equality. In fact, no other era compares with the Age of Enlightenment. Classical Antiquity is inspiring, but a world away from our modern societies. The Middle Ages was more reasonable than its reputation, but still medieval. The Renaissance was glorious, but largely because of its result: the Enlightenment. The Romantic era was a reaction to the Age of Reason – but the ideals of today’s modern states are seldom expressed in terms of romanticism and emotion. Immanuel Kant’s argument in the essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ (1795) that ‘the human race’ should work for ‘a cosmopolitan constitution’ can be seen as a precursor for the United Nations.
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 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 his essay “What is Enlightenment” he explains that enlightenment is “a man leaving his self-immaturity”. Unlike Rousseau, Kant offers the actual idea that people need to realize the theoretical democracy. Meaning that the people of France need to basically “sack up” and speak up for themselves and stop allowing the government create their lives for them. Also Kant addressed that the lack of enlightenment also led to issues away from politics, such as religion. He felt as if the enlightenment would assist in aspects not just politically, but economically, socially, and religiously as well.
From a Kantian perspective, providing reparation to blacks addresses the past wrongs of slavery and gives financial support to a long time disadvantaged group. To further explain, human beings are born free and anything that violates this freedom goes against moral laws and categorical imperatives; two important factors associated with the concept of freedom. Slavery violates freedom and was used as a means to an end; making it morally wrong. Reparation corrects this action by establishing financial equality for all members of society. With this stated, Kantian supports reparation.
In his essay “What is Enlightenment?,” Immanuel Kant presents conflicting views about whether he would have supported the American Revolution, but I ultimately believe that the Prussian-born philosopher would not have. He defines enlightenment as man’s freedom from “his self-incurred tutelage,” and tutelage as man’s dependence on others to utilize his understanding (1). This appears to support the Revolution, as the colonists are releasing themselves from the constraints of Great Britain’s rule. The colonists are simultaneously discovering the concept of human equality, thereby using their own reason. Kant uses the example of domesticated cattle that have been made dumb and dependent to illustrate the unenlightened. This, too, seems to provide
Kant's seventh proposition within his "Idea for a United History" that sees its as necessary for states working together before NGO’s or other political organizations such as the UN can be set up and successfully established. His desire to set into motion the idea of perpetual peace should be the result not the driving force behind nations working together.
Kant was a deontologist. Kant’s categorical imperative conditions, “never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 14). Each action taken by a human is based on a maxim or a rule of action. By the same token, he believed that humans should not act in a manner that cannot be universalized for everyone
When it comes to guiding our moral actions, I believe that care ethics is the better moral philosophy to follow over Kantian deontology. While both moral philosophies strongly believe in defending the dignity of our fellow man, care ethics believes that nurturance and caring is the best way to defend a person’s dignity, as opposed to Kant who believe that our actions alone determine our dignity and worth. There are a number of reasons why one should choose care ethics over Kantian deontology. The first reason is that, in his moral philosophy, Kant chooses reason over feeling. The second reason is that Kant lacks compassion for the unique situations of others by suggesting that the principle of good is universifiable. The third reason is that Kant ignores how the consequences of our actions affect others. Finally, the fourth reason is that Kant implies that while we should all seek to perfect our moral selves, we are not responsible for the moral growth and perfection of others. Instead, we are merely obligated to help others and promote their happiness.
Prior to World War One Europe had been the central world power. They looked at themselves as being above all other, this including countries and the people within those countries. In the first part of Michael Adas essay he explains the feelings and ideas that Europe had towards other countries and the peoples who lived within them. Not only does he touch on this subject, but also how
In his essay writing “What is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant defines enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” (Kant, 1). In order for us to completely understand this definition, we must first understand what Kant meant by “Immaturity”. In the writing Kant defines immaturity as “the inability to use one’s understanding without the guidance from another”(Kant, 1). Furthermore, Kant believes that this immaturity is self-imposed, and that it is the individual’s fault for lacking the courage and resolve to think for themselves, but instead pay others to think and understand for them. I substantially agree with this idea, however, his remarks on immaturity in relation to the government, the way people should live, and religion is quite impetuous and irrational. Likewise, I do agree that people should be able to live freely, and think for themselves, however I do not agree that they have to live without rules, regulations or a government. In his essay Kant says “. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.”(Kant, 1). Kant believes that these guardians restrain our minds and have us lack the capabilities to think for ourselves. However, I believe that these same guardians are those entities that help nurture our mind and enable us to think