Category: Immanuel Kant

Spinoza, the great philosopher, was both a determinist and a relativist. Though both these facets may seem paradoxical, yet his explanations throw light on their co-existence. As per his assertions, nothing is absolutely good or absolutely bad. The interpretation of good and bad is dependent upon the context in which it is perceived. This can be explained with the aid of an example. Death is something that brings grief and sorrow and thus is considered a bad event. However, for a chronically sick person, who cannot recover and is suffering both in the physical and psychological way, this might be the ultimate respite. In this case, death assumes the positive dimension. Therefore the idea of good and bad entirely gets interpreted in accordance with someone or something. This relativity underlines Spinoza’s philosophy on developing the right attitude towards life in general. According to him, this could be the means to free oneself from grief, stress, and anxiety.

The philosophers Bentham and Mill associated the concept of utilitarianism with the study of ethics. In simple words, utilitarianism implied the greatest good for the greatest number. This was based on the principle of utility. If an action generated such consequences that benefited a large number of people, the action was deemed good else bad. The explanation was followed by a simple calculation where the total numbers of good and bad actions were individually counted. Both totals were compared, and naturally, the bigger total defined whether a particular action was right or wrong. Since this approach only considered consequences as the parameters, it received its share of criticism. Focus on consequences meant the course of action was completely ignored. Secondly, some actions have delayed rather than immediate effect. This situation constrained the practical application of utilitarianism.

Kant’s principles on morality move exactly opposite to utilitarianism. He explains motive as the foundation for an action to be considered moral or immoral. He elaborates it through the concepts of duty and obligation. If one performs an action because it is his duty to do so, the action is considered moral. However, if the action is performed just as an inclination or obligation towards something, it is considered immoral. Kant’s justification seems sensible because the motive of the doer affects the ultimate consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant’s philosophy attempts to rationalize the intentions behind an action as the force behind the actual effects.

Kant also proposed the concept of categorical imperatives in the study of ethics. This meant that a certain consequence could be produced by a certain action. In other words, everything in the world has to be approached with a singular, structured perspective. There were no options in dealing with situations in different ways. This was in stark contrast with the concept of hypothetical imperatives, which implied looking at a certain thing from diverse perspectives. A simple illustration would be a situation where a friend asks another to keep a particular secret. When the latter is asked about it by somebody, not disclosing is one categorical imperative. However, the ethical dilemma that arises here is lying to keep the secret. Categorical imperative implies that he should not lie. Consequently, the situation is perplexing. Hence the concept of hypothetical imperatives seems more prudent in this case with scope for thinking and arriving at a certain course of action that would be more rational.

Kant’s Standpoint

In Kant’s analysis of ethics, he makes a clear distinction between two types of commands; hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. In the first category, an agent’s response to the statement in question depends on the implicit desires within him. For instance, a statement like, ‘you ought to do physical exercises every morning’ is a hypothetical imperative. The response to this statement depends on the agent. If he is not interested in becoming healthy, he can do without physical exercise. On the other hand, a categorical imperative does not operate in line with the desires of the agent. It is a moral obligation that applies equally to every element in society irrespective of their desires or liking. A good example of a categorical imperative is ‘you should not walk naked to a formal meeting.’ However much one enjoys walking naked, the statement shall not be retracted and allow the individual to come to a formal meeting naked. He will be forced to comply regardless of his inclination. Immanuel Kant, in his analysis of human ethics, comes up with two formulations of categorical imperatives. This paper highlights Kant’s conception of morality and identifies the weaknesses of the first formulation.

In the first formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant argues that a true proposition of morality must be independent of any situation or condition. He writes, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction” (Kant 30). In this supposition, Kant implies that whatever the circumstances surrounding a proposition, a moral maxim must stand independent and its application has to be universal. The physical details should not give a reason for deviation from the maxim.

This conception by Kant is flawed. The conception that every action should be based on the moral maxim without considering the circumstances could lead to justification of certain ills. Furthermore, the outcomes of the proposition should not be considered when responding to a proposition. Motive or reward should not be the basis of action. The duty to do right should be the ultimate goal and basis for any action.

This conception, therefore, justifies some actions that would subject other people to suffering. For instance, an ardent follower of the Kantian school would, without doubt, argue that Justice which is reflected through equality is a universal moral maxim that must be followed as a duty. What happens to a person who is found guilty of torture in a Kantian school of thought? He has to be punished equally. For justice, which is a moral maxim, to be done, the same person must be subjected to torture. In the same line, a person who commits murder has to be murdered because this is the only way the principle of justice can be achieved. No other considerations should be put on the table when dealing with such an individual. The rule of categorical imperative dictates that one must act according to duty as specified by the moral maxim. The moral maxim here calls for justice and equality. Consequently, the first formulation of the categorical imperative as stipulated by Kant can give room to such actions as murder and torture.

It is from such weaknesses that Kant develops the second formulation of the categorical imperative. In this approach, what is given emphasis is not just the principle that calls upon an individual to act according to the moral maxim, but also the end of the action in question. This second formulation allows for the consideration for the end of an action, therefore, giving room for consideration of the circumstance or conditions in question. This is contrary to the first formulation that did not allow for a circumstantial approach. Unlike the first formulation that typically denied free will the freedom through strict adherence to principle, the second formulation gives freedom to free will provided that the results are objective. By formulating the second categorical imperative as, “Act in a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end,” it will seal all loopholes that would allow for such activities as torture and murder. A person would not treat another just as a means to a given subjective end, like torturing a thief in public so that others do not steal, but consider him as an end in himself. Therefore, people should seek a perfect end for themselves and others. By assuming this approach, murder, torture, and slavery cannot be justified.

Singer’s Standpoint

In his book, Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, a well-known moral utilitarian elucidates on the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle stands for the position that action will only be considered right if, under the calculation of its rightness, the actor or agent puts into consideration all the interests that are affected. Not just the consideration part of it but also the equal representation of the rights should be considered. In his analysis of the rightfulness of an action, Singer argued that the rights of an individual should not play the central role while subjecting the individual’s interests to oblivion. Instead, the rights should not be considered but the interests. In precision, before taking an action against someone, his rights should play a secondary role while his interests assume the position of primacy (Singer 21).

The basic foundation upon which this moral perspective is built argues that it is not proper to judge an action by assuming a basis of the rights of the individual and failing to include the interests as conventional theories argued. Furthermore, the theory posits that giving some interests more strength while trivializing others is inappropriate. The utilitarian proponents of this principle argue that all interests, not just humans, but other objects’ should be put into consideration and in an equal manner. By doing this, several societal ills would be avoided. Racism, sexism, and nationalism are among the few ills that Singer points out that would be stemmed out if morals were weighed from this scale (Singer 22).

Singer argues that while applying the rule of rights in society, it is not logical to argue that all rights should be applied to all humans or all animals equally. He argues that some of the rights would not even apply to some segments of society. For instance, he talks of the right to vote. While it is the right of all humans to vote, it cannot be said that it is the right of all animals to vote because animals cannot vote. While considerations regarding rights could lead to segregation in the application of these rights, it does not mean that the interests of the groups that do not need certain rights should be undermined. As a result, he concludes that equal consideration should be given to animals’ interests as it is to human interests.

From this position, why should Singer justify euthanasia and abortion while campaigning against eating animals and using them for experiments? The position of the argument is clear. Singer believes in equality of consideration of interests. Not just human interests but even those of nonhumans. This means that before engaging in an action against a human or a nonhuman, it is proper to consider the interests and include them in the calculus of rightness. By eating animals, one will be subjecting them to pain while at the same time terminating their lives against their wish. This is wrong if applied to humans. Subjecting someone to pain or terminating their lives against their wish is a crime punishable in the court of law. Considering that Singer advocates for equal consideration of interests both for humans and nonhumans, he will advocate against treating animals indifferently. The law criminalizing human torture and murder should criminalize animal torture and murder.

Still arguing about interests, before undergoing an abortion, a woman or doctor would have identified that the child would suffer more if he came to earth. Or the mother would be subjected to serious dangers if the pregnancy is not terminated. This means that it is within the interests of the mother or child that abortion is carried out. In addition, mercy killing is done with the consideration of the interests of the subject being killed. This means that Singer would advocate for euthanasia and abortion because these two are carried out under the consideration of interests and not rights. On the other hand, he opposes the eating of animals because it is a clear indication of biased consideration of interests between humans and nonhumans.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential figures in modern philosophy due to the significant impact of his numerous works, which serve as the basis for the contemporary research in the fields of metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics and political theory. According to Kant himself, he effected the revolution in philosophy compared to Copernicus’ influence on the development of the science. Since the legacy of the German philosopher comprises significantly broader fields of study than could be covered in this paper, the primary goal is to understand the fundamentals of his theory, to overview the principal problems that he was attempting to solve and to touch upon the perception of his works by other philosophers.

In search of the answer to the given question, the primary reference point should be one of Kant’s most cited and acknowledged works – The Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1781. It shifted the rational paradigm of the XIX century, and, to this day, the book maintains its status of a highly relevant source for philosophical research. In this work, Kant questions the possibility of the rational and scientific cognition, as he was not content with his contemporaries’ philosophical theories. In The Critique of Pure Reason, the philosopher efficiently synthesized two different philosophical movements of his time – rationalism and empiricism – into his philosophy (Kant 19).

He argued that things themselves (“thing in itself” in Kant’s terminology) are absent from individual’s cognitive field, and thus one cognizes only the phenomena, which are things perceived by the human brain. In other words, the phenomenon is the product of the interaction of the thing-in-itself with our cognitive abilities, and this statement has the fundamental significance. The philosopher states that we are only experiencing the phenomenal world (the world of our sensations), without the access to the noumenal world, which consists of the things in themselves. Despite the fact that Kant was not the first of his contemporaries to declare the difference between the real world and the individual’s perception of it, he was the first to successfully dwell upon the connections between the human mind and its experience of the things in the world.

The philosopher develops his thesis about the cognition of the phenomena, observing that the human mind builds up the world of experience based upon the individual’s sensations of the things, which are existing independently. Primarily, those impressions are categorized by the inherent conceptions of space and time, which exist in the human’s intellect a priori (meaning that they do not require experience). Thus Kant concludes that space and time only exist in the individual’s cognition. Furthermore, the human mind has the system of categories and logical schemes a priori, and by that system, the world of experience is categorized. Kant emphasizes the fact that the sequencing and categorizing the experience do not happen arbitrarily, but they precede the conscious comprehension of the world.

The philosopher concludes that the rational cognition in the phenomenal world is possible only because this world is organized according to the cognitive laws of the human mind. Beyond the phenomenal world, the perception is impossible. Thus the next statement derives: the metaphysics (or philosophy as a whole, since they were contiguous notions in the XIX century) could not function as a science. The metaphysics study the things that are not the matter of experience (for example, the soul, the world as a whole, God), and thus the human intellect, attempting to argue them, fails to come to a conclusion and contradicts itself.

In the sphere of moral philosophy, Kant declares the principle of morality’s autonomy because the morality is not reduced to anything but itself and it could be understood only from the inside. The philosopher considers duty as the fundamental moral sensation, and the duty’s execution is the ethical and moral basis. According to Kant, the ethical law demands to “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 30). With that statement, the philosopher declares the universality of ethics, emphasizing the importance of not allowing any exceptions for anyone, thus formulating what is known as a categorical imperative. Besides, Kant perceives the duty as the ultimate motivation behind every individual’s actions, and he values the pure intention while performing the act more than the result of the action.

Touching upon the theme of morality, one can hardly deny the Kant’s evident and continuous influence on the ethical paradigm of the modern world, manifested through many aspects. In their research, Bowen and Prescott stress upon the importance of Kant’s works, since many contemporary ethical concepts originated from them (38). For example, the deontology primarily dwells upon the Kant’s notions of morality and the supremacy of duty over personal desires. Further, they analyze the Kantian impact on the sphere of contemporary communications. Their analysis is based on the study of the previously mentioned categorical imperative and the principle of autonomy. Stressing the importance of his theory, the researchers observe that “Kant was the first to maintain that rational beings could, with deliberative thought and purpose, understand and uphold moral principle” (Bowen and Prescott 39).

Although the point of view expressed by Kant was revolutionary for his time, nowadays this principle is applied to the numerous spheres of communication, such as business, management of organizations, mass media, public relations and marketing. Even the bare enumeration reveals the vast spectrum of the fields to study, and, of course, the application of the Kantian ethics to those spheres is not equal, since they all have their specific traits. In his review of the Frierson’s study, McQuillan observes that “Kant’s pragmatic anthropology provides practical advice one can use in interactions with others” (299). Therefore, it is evident that the modern day moral code is significantly impacted by the works of the German philosopher.

In this paper, the brief overlook of Kantian philosophy and its influence was given. The latitude of his research is immense, and to this day the study of his legacy continues to be prolific. However, it was possible only to describe the fundamentals of Kant’s beliefs in this paper, but even in that case, the importance of that study is undeniable, since the underlying notions of Kantian philosophy are the foundation of the modern-day ethics, morality, metaphysics, political theories, aesthetics, etc. The philosopher was able to describe the relations between the human brain, experiencing the world, and the world itself, which was the groundbreaking step in the direction of the contemporary philosophy. It was also shown that many aspects of the modern social life have their origins in the Kantian ethics. Taking everything into conclusion, one could say that Immanuel Kant is one of the most important and influential figures in modern philosophy, whose impact continues to prevail.

Works Cited

Bowen, Shannon A., and Paul Prescott. “Kant’s Contribution to the Ethics of Communication.” Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 2015, pp. 38-44.

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing, 1996.

—. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Read Books Ltd, 2013.

McQuillan, J. Colin. Review of Kant’s Empirical Psychology by Patrick R. Frierson. Philosophy in Review, vol. 35, no. 6, 2015, pp. 299-301.

Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard are two philosophers whose approaches to the concept of morality and the true way of life are strikingly different, yet possess many similarities. This essay compares Kant and Kierkegaard’s thoughts through their two major works, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and The Sickness Unto Death.

Immanuel Kant wrote his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals in 1785, while Kierkegaard wrote The Sickness Unto Death in 1849. However, since Kant was a rationalist and Kierkegaard a devout Christian, the two works have major methodological differences. Kant argues the case for morality to have certain apriori basis defined by his concept of ‘Categorical Imperative’ that simply put is nothing but standard of rationality from which all moral requirements are derived. Categorical imperative can also be simplistically defined as the unconditional command of our conscience to carry out acts that subscribe to common sense of goodness. For example it is common sense goodness not to use expletives in a conversation. Kierkegaard on the other hand looks at morality from the viewpoint of religious faith, specifically Christian faith in particular. Kierkegaard does not prescribe everyone to being Christians but to become like Christians. Kantian logic is based on analytical systematic rigors of rationalism where reason rules and the existence of God cannot be proved, Kierkegaard takes the same argument with an assumption that the world exists the way it is because of God. Kierkegaard uses the example of the New Testament story of Christ’s raising of Lazarus from the dead to argue that while the human body dies, the spirit lives on and thus it is not fear of physical death that should worry mankind but the spiritual sickness that pervades it. Man is given to despair and he loses his ‘self’ if he does not imbibe the ways God had laid out for him.

While the ‘self’ forms the core of Kierkegaard’s argument, the ‘Categorical Imperative’ becomes Kant’s main standpoint. To further explain his theory of the Categorical imperative, Kant uses the tool of maxims which can be defined as a rule followed in any deliberate intentional act. Kant’s first maxim “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant 43)”, emphasizes the case for moral acts to be based on pure practical reason and the need for universality of application and acceptance of such acts. Kierkegaard holds that man has an impure freedom of choice because he strays away from God while the Kantian logic looks at the impurity of the choice solely on his inability to apply pure practical reasoning. However, Kierkegaard’s emphasis on following ‘God’s will’ runs into an ethical dilemma for which the philosopher’s reasoning has no satisfactory answer. This pertains to the story of Abraham’s willingness to kill Isaac just because God told him to do it. Abraham’s faith that it was a command from God which allowed him to make an unethical choice, whereas he could have doubted that God was good instead, or decided that God was not really speaking to him are some critiques of the Kierkegaardian model of ethics. By extension, the reasoning provided by Abraham allows further justification for people to carry out unethical acts in the name of God.

Kant’s rationality follows through with considering every rational act committed by one human towards another “as an end and not just means to an end (Kant 36). While both philosophers are talking about the same aspect of morality, Kant looks at morals through a rationalistic prism while Kierkegaard sees morals as an extension of the Christian way of life. Kant believes in the existence of a ‘true will’ that can “act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends” (Kant 43). In simple terms, what Kant is trying to explain is that everyone knows what the right thing to do is. For example no one can justify that it is right to kill another human being for personal gains. Therefore any action is moral as long as it is universal rule of behavior. Therefore, man must forego such actions that tend to exploit, manipulate and disrupt the nature that otherwise could have been achieved through more ethical means. Kierkegaard holds that true realization only comes to those who can transcend above the finite and the conscious and realize the truth of God’s omnipotence and his role as the creator. Man’s inability to rise up to this ideal results in three kinds of Despair; “Despair Considered without Regard to its Being Conscious or not, Consequently Only with Regard to the Constituents of the Synthesis” (Kierkegaard 29), not wanting in Despair to be Oneself, and wanting in Despair to be Oneself. The first kind of despair is born out of ignorance, the second out of expediency of the moment while the third knows that a self exists but refusing to acknowledge the creator.

Kant’s rationale for the existence of God borders on agnosticism whereas Kierkegaard’s rests on following God’s plan. Kant’s analytical reasoning and rationalism and Kierkegaard’s reasoned spiritualism however, point to similar ideas on morality albeit, following different methodologies.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel, translation by Ellington James W. Grounding For the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd edn. Hackett, 1785, 1993.

Kierkegaard, Soren. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for upbuilding and Awakening. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

.

Introduction

The utilitarianism theory and Emmanuel Kant’s views on morality from the basics of philosophy are the most widely studied concepts in attaining an excellent understanding of philosophy. The theory of utilitarianism on normative ethics requires individuals to uphold actions that maximize utility while reducing harm. Utilitarianism is the most plausible ethical theory based on the belief that the greatest percentage of people benefit from morally upright actions (Rachels 43). Consequences from immoral and unethical actions clearly explain the morally right actions that individuals should adopt for their benefit as well as the benefit of others.

On the other hand, Emmanuel Kant’s views on morality are clear in his moral law and his propositions on ethics. In his book, ‘The groundwork for the metaphysics of morals,’ Kant expands his philosophical research to cover morality (Allison 111). Unlike utilitarianism concepts, Kant claims that morality goes beyond outward vices and virtues. Therefore, the theory of utilitarianism is not correct in holding that individuals only maximize utility and minimize harms. Although the two approaches on ethics differ, they have a similar objective, which explains ethics. This paper compares Emmanuel Kant’s views with utilitarianism as the most potent approaches to ethics.

Kant’s view of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, as explained by Stuart, differs from Kant’s view on the issue of consequences. According to Stuart, consequences for various actions have a significant impact. Utilitarianism focuses on explaining that every choice undertaken has a consequence. Ethical decisions yield positive results, thus maximizing benefits while reducing harms. The utilitarianism approach explains that the decisions made by individuals rely on the consequences yielded to determine their ethical nature. The motives and reasons for carrying out any action play an insignificant role in determining if a decision is ethical or not. This claim is in opposition to Kant’s view that consequences do not entirely matter.

Kant explains that only the reason and motive behind every action can determine whether a decision made is ethical. He states that individuals should undertake actions based on their motives regardless of the consequences such actions bring. Kant states that the actions should be free from any human desires and emotions because the motives for all actions are vital regardless of the consequences (Kant 67).

Teleological and deontological ethics in philosophy clearly illustrate this difference between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Deontological ethics emphasizes the motives and intentions of conducting an action despite the outcome of such actions. This theory is in line with Kant’s views on morality, where human reasoning plays a crucial role in performing different actions. On the other hand, the teleological ethical perspective states that the results for all actions matter in determining the nature of the undertaken decisions. The theory does not consider those individuals who honestly undertake good actions but fail in the results because of unavoidable factors. Therefore, this theory explains utilitarianism as developed by Stuart by showing how it differs in consequences with Kantian ethics.

Utilitarianism theory also emphasizes the relationship between morality and human pleasures and desires. It explains that individuals can undertake actions that make them happy, regardless of whether they will cause harm to others. Utilitarianism sees the efficient attainment of one’s desires as the only role of human reason because of the belief that intentions for various actions by individuals do not matter. However, with Kantian ethics, the motives for various actions are of great significance. This claim is clear from how reason forms the basis for morality according to Kantian ethics. According to Kant, trusting human desires and emotions may lead to dire consequences as opposed to the unchanging reason. He states that reason is solid and independent of factors that may prevail to change it. Thus, individuals should undertake correct actions based on their pure reason.

Utilitarianism explains morality as an empirical issue based on experiences while Kantian ethics explain it as a rational matter. While explaining his views, Kant is a rationalist who believes that individuals must have prior knowledge other than only through experiences. He states that morality is a rational concept and that knowledge can be derived from various sources. Kant also explains that morality has definite rules that demand consideration. Absolute rules exist that govern morality by requiring the consideration of all motives because the intentions for various actions are vital irrespective of whether they yield pleasure or not.

On the other hand, utilitarianism emphasizes morality as an empirical matter that depends on prior experiences. Also, the theory explains that morality lacks absolute rules and acts. The utilitarianism explained by Stuart focuses mainly on acts that yield maximum benefits. It suggests that individuals can do any acts based on experiences if the acts yield excellent results. Thus, utilitarianism is incorrect in requiring that we only maximize utility and reduce harm because some actions are impermissible even though they yield good consequences. Unlike Kantian ethics, utilitarianism raises moral issues because of the failure to consider the various intentions and actions despite their good results.

Kant emphasizes the importance of pure intentions and goodwill in his ethical philosophy. The morality of which is understood to all rational beings from the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative has three formulations that mainly emphasize people acting in ways they would be pleased if they became universal laws (Kant 32). Kant explains the significance of respecting others’ duties as well as the universality of morality. Thus, he explains his moral theory based on universalizing the truism according to his categorical imperative that forms his principles. This plan explains why individuals have intrinsic worth according to Kantian ethics.

However, critics claim that the motives behind various actions require little desire to enable individuals to partake them. However, pro-utilitarianism claims that the intentions of various decisions and actions should be inclined towards obtaining pleasure and desires because many people view utilitarianism as a generally accepted principle of utility that derives its principles from sensible experience and maximization of benefits. Utilitarianism further depicts how individuals are not intrinsically valued. The opponents of utilitarianism say that simple rules such as telling the truth can change easily to suit the goal for achieving maximum pleasure (Rachels and Rachels 29). Also, it is too time-consuming and attracts injustices because unjust acts can be justified by the principle of deriving maximum benefits.

Conclusion

Despite the differences between utilitarianism with Emmanuel Kant’s views, they all aim at explaining the morality theory. These philosophical theories form a firm foundation for understanding morality. In my opinion, utilitarianism is incorrect in terms of requiring that individuals should only maximize benefits and minimize harms. It raises moral questions for lack of consideration of the motives behind actions. However, Kantian ethical perspectives require people to act out of goodwill and think of themselves as free to reason rightfully. Kant believes that there are no evil actions because all actions are undertaken for the right reason (Kant 36). The comparison of the theories, as depicted in their differences, portrays the different perspectives of the two philosophers. The significance or criticism of both theories makes them the most widely studied philosophies on morality.

Works Cited

Allison, Henry. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Kant, Immanuel. Kant: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Minnesota: Wilder Publishers, 2008. Print.

Rachels, James. The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy, New York: Columbia University press, 2007. Print.

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. Problems from philosophy, New York: McGraw-Hill Education Publishers, 2011. Print.

The fifth Cosmological argument in support of the existence of God, advanced by Aquinas is, in effect, the teleological principle, based on the idea of ‘governance’. It argued that natural objects, bereft of knowledge, acted in a way, not whimsically, but in terms of an underlying objective. In other words, ‘the design’, to achieve the best end, there existed some primordial being, as the repository of all the superior knowledge and perception. This primordial force has been referred to as God, who directed natural things, down the physical order, to move towards their respective ends.

This argument may be best conceived of as an “inference to the best explanation”, rather than as deductive reasoning, (although, Aquinas thought it otherwise) shorn of any empirical veracity. The argument, idealistically appeals to the existence of a super-order and implants an overarching purpose in the universe, and contends that the best explanation of the functioning of the order could be adduced in terms of the ‘natural design’, ordained by the omnipotent being. (Aquinas, 101).

This argument has the distinct advantage that it appeals to reason, makes a deep idealistic impression on the mind, and lends the advocate to use it freely in preference to all other reasoning. The major points of the physico-theological proof, as categorized by Kant himself, may be visualized as a four-mode aspect. The first aspect deals with the existence of symptoms of the operation of an order, in accordance with a clearly defined purpose and innate wisdom, in a universe, which is extremely diverse and vast. The second aspect indicates that there is a governing principle, commensurate with the underlying ideas, which chose and designed the apparently disparate bodies of the world to interact with them, to the eventual realization of a ‘determinate’ final weal. The third aspect deals with the existence of a profound and an-all immanent cause, which, necessarily, maybe inferred as the free, intelligent, propelling force of the world. The fourth and last aspect is a perceived unity of the cause, deduced from the unity of the ‘reciprocal relations’ existing between various parts of the world.

One of the principal critical contentions made by Kant, in refutation of the teleological argument is that it had taken a resort to the transcendental and unconditioned idea of a ‘necessary and all-sufficient’ entity, beyond the pale of objective empiricism. He argued and, in a way, quite convincingly too, that the concept of the Supreme Being was taken out of the causal series of earthly beings. This was governed in terms of the cyclical chain of causation and effect, beyond the realm of sensual experience and cognition, and the disjunct was, seemingly, bridged through the employment of pure speculative proof. This is because of its all-powerful wisdom and intelligence, unmatched by the lower members of the natural hierarchy of the universe.

The construct of this immanent being, the ‘unconstrained author or the architect’ has been divorced from the objectively perceivable principle of causality. This was in the mode of characterizing the functioning of lower beings down the order. Yet it has been hailed as something ‘original’ and ‘self-sustaining’ through attribution of the highest degrees of perfection to it. This has been done (though taking recourse to commonsense reason, free from self-contradiction) based on ‘abstruse speculation’, not grounded on experience. Further, Kant questions the automatic extension of ends and causes, binding the interaction of natural entities of the universe with those of objects, created out of human innovation and entrepreneurship, like, say, ships, watches, and houses. Following the usual logic of an all-powerful supreme will, he rhetorically asks if the functioning of these ‘artificial objects’ made out of ‘human art’ was also guided by the same omnipotent design. Illustratively, he casts very strong doubt on the rationality of the teleological principle to place both these categories of objects within the same ordinate of a comparative index, as far as they are regulated, as argued by the physico-theologians, by the immanent laws of the universe. On what strength of argument, does it make sense to compare the universe to a clock or a house? Is the world necessarily ‘a work presupposing a workman?’ He inferred with a certain amount of logical definiteness, that the employment of such transcendental abstraction to explain away the functioning of these different sets of entities, on the same principle of universal laws of the ‘omnipotent’, would not be able to stand the scrutiny of objective queries.

He also argues that the world could just as well be the reality in eternity rather than be considered a machine. He also questions “finality” and asks if it is inherent in the things themselves. Kant further strengthened his argument by contending that the purposiveness and seamless adaptation of the functioning of natural objects with that of the universe was in the domain of ‘form’ only and not with regard to ‘substance’. He argued that proof the latter would have necessitated clear and irrefutable evidence of the premise that the natural things in the world are also, in their ultimate material substance, products of the same supreme wisdom, to make them amenable of being regulated by the universal laws. In absence of such proof, the logic of automatic equivalence between the governing laws of natural things and that of the absolute necessity, viz., God, breaks down irreversibly. (Yong, 245-246).

The concept of the supreme wisdom as the repository of perfection being described by such superlative epithets as “very great”, “astounding” etc also suffers from indeterminacy. Since the magnitude of such perfection could not be comprehensively determined, barring such idealistic concepts of “allness” [“omnitudo”], the concept has been rendered tenuous and hollow, and unable to lend itself any cogency and firmness, for a more deterministic inquiry of the same. A striking feature of Kant’s contention is that he also reserves a kind of cynical appreciation for the teleological proof of the supremacy of the ultimate when he asserts that the former points to a feature “which strengthens the belief in the highest author so that it becomes an irresistible conviction”. While describing “the splendid, order, beauty and providence which is displayed throughout nature as alone producing faith, in a wise and great world author”, he, basically, empathizes with the doctrine, in referring to it as a natural human tendency and considers it as a piece of popular thought but not as rigorous or philosophical proof.

Kant maintains that the argument of the supremacy, innate wisdom of the ‘author’ of the world, while short-circuiting the process of empirical validation, actually relies on the cosmological proof (referred to as a concealed ‘ontological proof’). It starts from the contingency principle, to infer the existence of an ‘absolutely necessary being’ (third cosmological principle). Then, from the concept of the absolute necessity of the first efficient cause (2^nd principle), straightway catapults itself to the final, ‘determinate’ paradigm of the ‘all-embracing’ reality, as he derisively refers to, ‘on the wings of ideas’. In this context, he somehow made light of the physico-theologians’ disposition as ‘clear-sighted students of nature” looking down on abstract, transcendental theologians as “dark, brooding weavers’ of the web. However, their attempt to strengthen the facets of theology with the objective results of the study of nature is never followed up as it hurriedly enters the arena of mere theoretical possibilities, in order to establish the existence of the God of philosophy.

Thus, it may be reasonably inferred that the argument, as outlined above, happens to be Kant’s one of the most potent and persuasive wedges of objection to the physico-theological belief of God’s existence. While he strongly contends that all efforts made by the more profound of the ontological proof must be futile, he strongly adheres to the view that in the quest for obtaining knowledge about the ultimate transcendental entity. No argument deserves to be carefully considered and accepted within the usual parameters of analytical rigor, unless it addresses itself to the realm of experience and seeks to achieve its aim through the intellectual means, via, the time-tested vehicle of empirical validation. (Kant, 518-524).

Works Cited

Kant, E; Physico-Theological Proof Impossible; Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason; 518-524.

Aquinas, T; The Teleological Argument (The Fifth Way); The Metaphysical Quest; 101.

Yong, Amos; God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science; Religious Studies Review; Volume 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages: 245-246.

In Critique of Judgment Kant addresses four main types of judgment which helps a scientist come to agreement. Kant singles out: the agreeable, the beautiful, the good and the subline. These are reflective judgment. The agreeable type of judgment can be used for subjective judgments; the goof can be used for ethical judgments, the beautiful – for analysis of a form and the will. Kant requires material principles as a formal principle. Kant also requires them for mathematics. In order to get a general view of how Kant enumerate the following principles: Kant pays attention to teleological judgment Kant’s characterization of the analytic principles here is the same as its development in the Critique. An analytic principle must be provable from concepts. When Kant asks how these propositions are to be classified, he faces an almost insurmountable difficulty. The propositions about equality, whole and part, etc. are difficult to order in one definite science and have always been shunted back and forth between ontology, logic, and mathematics. For Kant, a man is an ultimate end, and the nature is expression of this process. Judgment is of a kind which stays within the bounds of experience and is thus legitimate, while analytic judgment, on the contrary, goes beyond the bounds of experience.

So, the main question raised by Kant is the relations between different types of judgment and human nature of decision-making. The question of where these propositions belong can even be posed with respect to Kant himself. He had a system of all the sciences in mind, at least as a goal. There are numerous Reflections on the theme of the analytic principles. All judgments are really judgments of identity. Such a resolution of two different definitions into the same basic concepts is, however, quite impossible. He has, indeed, entirely banned such a theory of judgment by the distinction between essentials, attributes, and modes of judgment requires, on the contrary, concepts which are wholly alike in form.

It is possible to say that Kant does not clearly explain the relations between judgments and their universal meaning. For instance, he states that the beautiful can be seen as “form of finality” but “beautiful” is based on out subjective decision-making. “As regards the agreeable, every one concedes that his judgement, which he bases on a private feeling, and in which he declares that an object pleases him, is restricted merely to himself personally” (Kant). If we amuse that out decision-making is final, the form of finality can be applied to three other judgments as well. Interpretations of Kant’s views about judgment frequently correlate with synthetic and analytic judgments. Continual attempts then follow to discover contradictions in the concept of analytic judgment. We could ask how the concept of the predicate could be contained in that of the subject, how the former could be derived from the latter, and thereby two things are overlooked.

Works Cited

Kant, I. Critique of Judgment. n.d. Web.

Introduction

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant were notable philosophers of the Enlightenment era. Their contributions to Utilitarianism and Morality are seminal and form the basis of our political and social structures in the western world. In this paper, we examine some of the concepts put forward by Mill and how they relate to Kantian notions of good and duty.

Mill defined Utilitarianism as the principle that holds our actions as producing the maximum amount of pleasure. Thus, he is a consequentialist when he describes that we should act in such a way to promote happiness for ourselves provided we do not harm others in the process.

In the Kantian scheme of things, we should act in such a way to do the “right thing”. Goodwill is the desire to do the right thing and we should exercise our reason irrespective of the consequences. According to Kant, “is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself”. Thus, it is independent of the circumstances and “what affects or accomplishes”.

Comparison

Mill’s response is “to do good” than “it is better to be good”. This is because Mill’s Utility can be described as “the most pleasure and least pain for the largest possible number of people”. Thus, being a consequentialist Mill would answer Kant’s claim on doing our duty as that we should do our duty only if it provides us with happiness. For Mill, Kant’s ideology is a flat world where reason and rationality reign supreme and pleasure is relegated to the corner. Mill considers our actions as either promoting happiness or sadness. Kant, on the other hand insists on doing things just because they promote “goodwill”.

There is definitely an element of hedonism in Mill’s line of thought as much as they promote happiness above everything else. However, as I argue throughout this paper, Mill did not intend the modern conception of hedonism and he categorically stated that we should pursue happiness without harming others.

Kant gives four examples as part of the categorical imperative that include duties towards self, duties towards others, duty towards god and perfect duties. These are summed up stating that “act in accordance as that will become universal law”. Thus, Kant exhorts us to act for the good and morality. In my opinion, Mill would not subscribe to this view. Mill states that we should act in such a way as to promote happiness for self and others. There is no place for demanding duties.

Shades of Kantian metaphysics can be seen in Protestantism. However, Mill stands squarely in the libertarian scheme of things in the modern world. The pursuit of happiness is the ultimate end for Mill and Kantian notions of goodwill as the absolute is anathema to Mill.

Conclusion

In analyzing whether Kant is right or Mill is right, I take the position that each tries to justify their ideology in an elaborate way. While Mill does not use the complicated jargon that is put forth by Kant, nonetheless the notion of good and actions to which we should subscribe are relative points in this complex world. In conclusion, the point I’m trying to make is that we have moved away from the era in which Kant and Mill lived and we are in a world where moral absolutes have given way to a relativistic thinking about ourselves and the world we live in.

In our daily endeavours, we are constantly faced with decisions that beg for moral reasoning. We choose our friends according to our moral considerations. An analysis of an individual’s actions may inform our mental faculties about whether the individual is virtuous or vicious. But the actions can be studied in different perspectives depending on the moral philosophies of various scholars, one of them being Emmanuel Kant. According to Kant, moral requirements are based on a principle of rationality that he called Categorical Imperative (CI). Practical reasoning must indeed reveal that for individuals to be perceived as rational beings, they must be seen to conform to certain instrumental principles (Hare, p. 23). Immoral or vicious life must therefore constitute a violation of the categorical imperative – an action perceived as irrational. This essay aims at discussing if moral human beings can form personal friendships with individuals considered vicious based on Kant’s principle of a morally virtuous life.

In his own argument, Kant opined that a rational will must be perceived as free or autonomous in the sense that the individual must be allowed free will to author the law that binds the rational will. In other words, the categorical imperative, or the fundamental principle guiding the morality of an individual, should be nothing else apart from the principle of an autonomous will. Kant’s moral philosophy is therefore based on the conception of reason that is governed by passions rather than the concept of “human slave” (Kerner 11). Individuals must therefore be guided by the self-governing concept of reason in deciding about the moral rightness or wrongness of action as opposed to a universally held view.

According to Kant, virtue is defined as “the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty” (Jones, 2003). Accordingly, vice is defined as principled immorality. For a person to be perceived as virtuous, he must be evaluated on account of an existing moral duty. Virtues are perceived as explicable only in reference to a prior account of dutiful or moral behaviour, rather than treating behaviour traits as more basic than the notions of right or wrong (Kant 2002). In other words, individuals must never base their moral conduct on some pre-existing conditionalities of how society perceives good character but rather by their philosophical account of a rational agency. The overriding principle in Kant’s argument is that any moral being must be rational. In reference to the essay topic, the virtuous individual must consider the intentions of the relationship before embracing the vicious man. If the relationship is based on rational engagement based on ‘goodwill,’ then there will be no grounds to deny the friendship according to Kant’s moral philosophy. Kant’s view on virtue is radically different from Aristotle’s. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that repetition of good habits informs the virtues of an individual (Cox 2004). A virtuous and just man is produced by repeating just habits, while a vicious and unjust man is produced by doing the opposite. To Aristotle, virtue is just a habit, learnt out of constant repetition.

Kantian virtue ethics is rather centred on duty rather than good. An individual who relentlessly acts from duty is perceived as a moral person in Kantian moral ethics. The individual must never allow the expression of his emotions, partial attachments, or non-moral interests to inform his decisions but should rather pursue the relationship based on duty (Baron 56). However, the motive of duty is not the sole determinant of any action according to Kantian virtue ethics. An individual could still be perceived as virtuous without necessarily performing an action that shows moral worth. Individuals must never perform an act basically because it is required of them to do so. This serves to reinforce the assertion that a moral individual can establish a relationship with a vicious individual based on rationality and duty if the relationship does not expose the moral individual to acts that are considered immoral by his own rational thinking (Campbell, 1995). In the relationship, the individuals must never at any single moment be informed by self-interest, personal affection, non-moral interests, emotions, or compassion to one another.

In Groundwork, Kant aims at coming up with a philosophy or principle by which to base all our common moral judgements. Rational and moral human beings must therefore ask themselves the question of “What ought I to do” when faced with a choice of establishing a personal friendship with an individual who is at best considered vicious. Moral philosophy must therefore explain and characterize the many demands that moral decisions make on forms of human social interaction and human psychology (Lafollette 26). According to Kant, any moral decision must take into consideration the highest good and its relationship or association with the moral life. The highest good is often considered the ultimate end of human endeavour (Gaus, 2007).

It, therefore, follows that any relationship between a moral and vicious being must take into account the highest good that can be achievable by the initiator of the friendship. Kant presupposes virtue may, in fact, conflict with the state of wellbeing as it does not insure or facilitate the status (Herman, 1999). Based on his arguments, a virtuous individual could establish a personal relationship with a vicious person based on his own convictions rather than those put on the individual by society. Society can wrongly condemn an individual. Therefore it’s up to the virtuous individual to be guided by the concept of reason when deciding about the moral rightness or wrongness of the relationship. Individuals must therefore be guided by the self-governing concept of reason in deciding about the moral rightness or wrongness of action as opposed to a universally held view. A commensurate achievement of wellbeing and an unlimited amount of time to perfect ourselves are necessities required by reason to make formidable moral decisions (Johnson, 2008).

Friendships develop out of commonsense ideas, mutually shared by individuals. To Kant, basic common sense ideas are facilitated by the perception that ‘good will’ can be the only good thing considered in any moral arrangement without any qualification (Hursthouse 2008). This, therefore, means that any moral being is allowed by Kant’s moral reasoning to enter into a relationship with an individual based on the goodwill of the individual rather than the vicious nature he is known of by society. The vicious nature may be imposed on the individual by society, just like society imposes such phrases as ‘good natured’ and ‘well-intended.’ Goodwill is not in any way associated with such terms and is closely related to the concept of ‘an individual of good will’ or a ‘good individual’ (Jones, 2003). The overriding concept of what makes an individual virtuous is his possession of a certain will that is predetermined by the moral law. A virtuous individual is one who acts and makes decisions perceived to be morally worthy, notwithstanding the fact that his moral considerations guide his behaviour conclusively (Keela, 2008). Consequently, a vicious individual cannot be guided by any moral considerations and hence cannot be in pursuit of goodwill.

As moral agents, human beings are supposed to be autonomous and rational. They must be allowed the freedom to make the choice of who to interact with based on reason. In this perspective, a moral being is allowed to establish a personal relationship with a vicious person based on reason. As a rational being, the individual must be able to judge by his own free will whether the relationship will be morally based on his categorical imperative (Jones, 2006). According to Kant, apart from the goodwill – that which is ultimately conceived to be good without any qualifications whatsoever – other human characteristics have value only when viewed under certain conditions to decode if they are good or evil (Hinman, 2006). As such, what is viewed as evil or vicious by one individual may not necessarily be viewed as such by another individual. Therefore, the individual involved has been left with the leeway to decide if the actions of his partner constitute vicious actions based on reason or are mere labels put on the individual by society. Even if his actions are vicious by any standards, the relationship should be guided by the intentions and rationality of the moral being towards the friendship. If the rationality is genuine enough to satisfy the desires and needs of the moral being, then the friendship should proceed without being scrutinized in regard to other moral considerations.

By extension, Kant’s virtue ethics is deontological by the very fact that actions are perceived as morally right or wrong based on their motives (Kerner, p. 35). For example, let’s assume that the moral being has been lonely and wants someone to fill the friendship gap. In his endeavour to find a friend, the moral being bounces on the vicious being and develops a personal relationship with him. According to Kant, such a relationship is blessed at least morally by the fact that it was informed by a genuine motive that arose out of a genuine duty to find companionship. Besides the vicious nature of the other individual, the action of establishing a personal relationship is morally right, according to Kant, basically because the moral being is determined to act in accordance with the duty of finding a companion. In his duty, the moral being has overcome emotions, self-interests, and obvious bodily desires to act in that particular way. To Kant, this is a ‘Maxim’ or a general desire to act in accordance with one’s duty. This encourages Kant to argue that “duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.” If practical reason would will a particular action to be universal law, then such an action is morally right (Kemerling, 2001).

According to Kant, individuals must always act based on a principle that they can take a particular action to become universal law if it is informed by goodwill (Lafollette 57). This is the principle of universality and does not in any way curtail the establishment of a personal relationship between a moral being and a perceived vicious individual. Agents must act in a specific manner that everyone else may act in the future. Virtue is a purposive, as well as a settled disposition (Davison, 2006; Athonassoulis, 2006). It requires an affirmation on the part of the actor as well as a conscious choice. Based on this argument, the moral being would want to establish a relationship based on his free will, rationality, and the genuine need of what the friendship would be able to achieve. The nature of the other person doesn’t really matter as Kantian virtue ethics is virtually self-centred in its approach of considering the perceived moral duty (Hare, p. 21). If the moral duty of the moral being would be satisfied by his interaction with the vicious being, then the morally right thing to do is to establish a relationship regardless of the perceived wrong deeds of the other agent. In Kantian virtue ethics, the moral wrongs of the vicious being do not in any way influences the friendship if the moral duty of the initiator is being met.

The above observation forms a credible criticism of Kantian virtue ethics. Morality must be a discipline that ought to talk about other people, not about our own (Kerner, p. 34). According to this objection, virtue ethics is self-centred because it is concerned with the agent’s own character, without really considering if others have their own characters. In the scenario given, it has been aptly explained that the moral being can enter into any form of relationship based on the principle that he will satisfy his own rational thinking and own duty towards the relationship. It does not in any way give the second actor (vicious being) any opportunity for his duty to be revealed in the relationship. But morality should not be viewed under that perspective since it deals with individual actions to the extent that it affects other individuals (Baron, p. 27). The vicious nature of the other person must affect the type of relationship established no matter how we may want to concentrate on the set goals and duties of the virtuous being in the relationship. Despite the fact that a relationship can be established between the two agents, it is vehemently clear that Kantian virtue ethics seems to be uniquely fascinated by the acquisition of virtues in conjunction with an agent’s own flourishing and wellbeing while being inconsiderate to the wellbeing of other agents (Davison, 2006).

A more general objection is the tendency of the Kantian virtue ethics to treat the concept of well-being as a master value in itself, thereby implying all other things are valuable to the extent that they contribute to the concept of well-being (Hare, p. 59). But Tim Scanlon objects to the assertion, arguing that well-being is more of self-interest rather than a good in itself. Furthermore, one does not need to compare himself with others to evaluate his well-being (Kerner, p. 67; Athonassoulis, 2006). These are valid criticisms of Kantian virtue ethics. But in all due respect, Kant’s argument about a morally virtuous life cannot be underestimated. His argument is used by many people to inform the virtue of their characters and behaviours in all relationships that they engage in.

References

1. Athonassoulis, N 2006. Virtue Ethics. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Ethics. Web.
2. Baron, M.W. 1995. Kantian Ethics without Apology. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
3. Campbell, J 1995. The Practice of Moral Judgment: Book Reviews, BNET.
4. Cox, L.H 2004. Aristotle Ordinary Versus Kant’s Revisionist Definition of Virtue as Habit, Centenary College of Louisiana. Web.
5. Davison, B 2006. An explanation of the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant, Associated content. Web.
6. Gaus, G.F 2007. What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act.
7. Hinman, L.M 2006. Kant and Kantian Ethics, University of San Diego.
8. Hursthouse, R 2008. Virtue Ethics, Oxford University Press. Web.
9. Harman, G 1999. Virtue ethics without character traits. Web.
10. Hare, R. M 1997. Sorting out ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11. Jones, R 2003. Moral Philosophy: Understanding Virtue Ethics, London: Oxford University Press
12. Kant: The moral order 2002. Web.
13. Kemerling, G 2001. Kant: The Moral Order. Web.
14. Keele, L. (2008). The categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, Suite 101.com. Web.
15. Kerner, G. C 1990. Three philosophical moralists: Mill, Kant, and Sartre, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
16. LaFollette, H 2000. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Immanuel Kant and His Literary Works

Immanuel Kant was a German professor of logic and metaphysics who lived from 1724 to 1804. Immanuel Kant was born to an esteemed but poor saddler in Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) that was located in the eastern side of Prussia. The ideologies of his father is said to have influenced Kant. Kant attended Collegium Fridericianum and joined the University of Koningsberg when he was sixteen. His subjects of study were physics, mathematics and philosophy and listened to speeches in religious studies. When Kant’s father died he worked as a tutor to support his family. However, he found time for research and wrote books such as Theory of Heavens and General History of Nature that aimed to prove that the solar system and other heavenly bodies were developed out of an embryonic nebula, and “On Fire” for which he was awarded a doctor’s degree and gained the job as a university lecturer. Kant then became the professor for metaphysics, moral philosophy, anthropology, natural theology, logic, physics, mathematics, and physical geography. Kant wrote his most famous books such as Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics and Critique of Judgment while he served as a dean of faculties and preacher of university at Köningsberg. Though his speeches on anthropology and geography were admired, Kant never traveled outside his home-town and always believed in his own logical philosophy. His writings were intended to provide scientific reasoning to philosophy but his lingo made his writings difficult to understand by many proficient philosophers let alone the amateurs (Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)).

Critique of Practical Reason

Kant, in his book “Critique of Practical Reason,” argues that a person’s ethical verdicts are based on logical principles that have nothing to do with world knowledge and hence shows the effect of self-determination. The thesis is further categorized into a table of Elements and a Methodology. Kant explains that individuals are accustomed by the rule of causality, which proclaims that every outcome has a preset reason. In practice this would tear down the probability of self-determination. Kant also asserts that a person considers himself as a wholly sensible and logical individual. By itself, an individual’s behavior may be trained by aesthetic reasons or stuck in the ethical law, the ‘definite essential’ which obliges us to ‘operate only on that saying during which you can at the same occasion resolve that it must happen to be a worldwide law’. Kant also emphasizes in closing his urging about self-determination that the notions of God and being eternal, while amused as a simple option for abstract basis are essential for realistic rationale (Nineteenth-Century Literary Criticism).

According to Kant, practical reasons are schemes including a wide-range of willpower. They are dictums or one-sided schemes when conveying an individual’s determination; purpose on the other hand is convincing terms of the motivation of logical being in general. Practical principles which assume a purpose of yearning are merely experimental and they do not have any practical laws. All sensible people essentially desire pleasure but they do not concur with each other’s ideas of attaining the pleasure or the essence which gives them enjoyment. It would be impossible to determine any rule to bring all men into agreement. The best theory would be that ethical perception decides liberty of mind. But the fact is that ethics would be completely shattered if the motive is not as logical and piercing in connection to the willpower of the majority of men. Doing something with a wrong motive or for falsification of facts is not as acceptable as doing something for self satisfaction. Since happiness is relative to a particular situation or an individual, a need for happiness cannot determine morality in general. Moral law expects everyone’s agreement such that anyone can distinguish what is right and what is wrong. Thus morality is easier to understand and live accordingly than attributable to self contentment. The only major demerit of moral law is that it believes that a punishment for a morally wrong action is a natural outcome which is not acceptable. Here practical reason should be connected with a crime and moral legislation should be altered to make sure the individual gets proper punishment as in the case of a legal offence. The practical principles may be classified as Subjective and Objective. Subjective and Objective principles can be further classified as external and internal. The external subjective principles can be education and social structure and the internal subjective principle, ethical. The Objective principles can be of excellence as external and God’s force as internal. The subjective elements are investigational and cannot support ethical laws as they are explained by writers like Mandeville, Montaigne, Hutcheson and Epicurus. The objective elements speak of attaining perfection as obtaining them through God which can be considered by sensible ideas. The one attractive concept behind Divine force is that happiness attained or expected to attain through Spirituality will also motivate people. The recognized practical principle of the pure reason claims that the sheer outline of a worldwide legislation must comprise the definitive influential principle of the determination. It is the only potential practical principle which is adequate to provide clear-cut imperatives, that is, practical laws which make deed a duty. Good and evil are the only essence of practical reason. By the term ‘good’ is recognized as an object inevitably required and by ‘evil’ something essentially despised motive triggering the mind in each case. In essence, the laws of practical reason asserts on the never-ending existence of the spirit and the God (Hughes).

Appraisal of Kant’s Position on Practical Reason

Kant’s critique of practical reason explains about individual morality and how it affects their actions. Kant claims that a person’s actions are completely dependent on the individual’s ethics. An individual’s ethics may or may not coincide with another individual’s ethics. Kant asserts that commonly accepted ethics should also be written down similar to laws. But this affects the individual’s freedom of thoughts. Kant goes to the extent of claiming that ultimate perfection can motivate people to do ethically correct actions. Again the confusion remains as to the action whether it is based on individual’s ethics or the universal ethics. Kant asserts that an ethically wrong deed should be considered a crime and be punished. This concept may be agreed to some level with Kant’s theory of morality.

Morality to some extent does influence a person’s actions. But that constitutes only a meagre percentage of actions and individuals can confirm to this theory. If this theory is to be accepted, every person will be correct in every action according to his own ethics. Since there are some formal legal rules already formed, it is always better to go according to those rules rather than informal moral principles to make out right from wrong. In practice, the rules will have to be reviewed and altered periodically to make sure that it confirms to the present mental and physical circumstances of the action. If a proper regulatory system is established, people will begin to comply with them on their own and hence there would be fewer crimes. Kant’s theory of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is dependent on many issues and cannot be depended upon universally. When God’s existence itself seems to be a matter of dispute for many, spirituality cannot be the only motive for good deeds. There are people who believe on different ‘Gods’ and yet act is similar ways on given circumstances. They confirm more to the legislations formally laid upon and to some level of universally accepted ethics.

Critique of Aesthetic Judgment

Kant talks about judgments of taste and rationale in Critique of Judgment. The effort is divided into a “Critique of Teleological Judgment” and a “Critique of Aesthetic Judgment”. In the first division of Critique of Judgment, Kant discards the subsequently stylish mechanistic dispute as an account for the concord of elements of organisms, as well as the theological dispute that it is the creation of a clever design. Rather, rationale in nature must be assumed as a methodological assumption in any scientific explanation. The second section is devoted to artistic opinions about the beautiful, which for Kant are prejudiced but across the world valid. Kant explains that in the consideration of a beautiful object, a person experiences a free play of thought and imagination (Critique of Judgment). The critique has been divided into two books and each book into further sections that talks about different aspects of judgment. In Book 1, Kant talks about judgment of the Beautiful. Kant divides the analytic of the Beautiful into various moments.

According to Kant’s first moment of judgment of the beautiful, taste is the ability of assessing an item or a form of demonstration by way of a delight or dislike distant from any interest. The item of such a pleasure is called beautiful. According to the second moment, the beautiful can be defined as that which spaced out from a perception that satisfies matter across the world. According to the third moment, Beauty is the outline of conclusiveness in an object, to the extent that is apparent in it apart from the depiction of a conclusion. According to the fourth moment, the beautiful is that which is considered as an object of an essential delight. Summarizing Kant’s first four moments, an object of beauty is the finalized, interest free, unconditional like or dislike, which is accepted universally and is an essential delight. In the second book, Kant describes about sublime or the inspiration. Kant discussed the relations between the beautiful and the sublime. Kant defines sublime as ‘absolutely great’. When people begin to assess the magnitude of greatness of the pleasure derived from natural things, they begin to measure their magnificence. The quality of such things brings about the idea of sublime. There are things that please our sensations which can be quantified and such delight cannot be demanded.

Certain things bring delight just by the thought of which and it cannot be quantified. Kant considers art and music to explain his ideas of the beauty and sublime. Music and plays that brings about laughter are not thought provoking and hence can be considered sublime. They delight our mind and not our senses and are aesthetic. But when it comes to fine art, it gives delight only when it is interpreted by the admirer’s mind. It involves a thought process which when successful brings bout delight. This is more concerned with the taste. There is an element of confusion existing with the judgment of taste. The confusion is that though Kant claims in one portion that the judgment of taste is not based on theory, since if it were it would be open to difference of opinion; it is based on theory, since if it were not, there would be no agreement regarding the judgment among others also. The basic idea is that an aesthetic idea when coupled with a concept makes it universally accepted. Kant arrives at a conclusion that:

1. The beautiful delights right away (but only in reflective instinct, not, like ethics, in its theory).
2. It delights apart from all interest.
3. The liberty of thoughts (consequently of our sense in respect of its responsiveness) is, in assessing the beautiful, symbolized as in harmony with the understanding’s compliance to law.
4. The individual principles of the assessment of the beautiful is signified as universal, that is., valid for every man, but as not supported by means of any universal theory (the purpose behind the principle of morality is also universal, i.e., for everyone, and, for all deeds of the same individual, and, supported by means of a worldwide theory).

Hence moral principles cannot alone bring about universal delight; it has to be backed up by some universal concept to be accepted completely.

Criticism of Kant’s View of Aesthetic Judgment

Kant’s critique of Aesthetic judgment deals with judgment of the beautiful and the sublime. Kant explains that a thing of beauty is that which appeals universally to everyone’s senses and gives them delight. This need not confirm to any existing concept and will be unconditional. Kant says that ultimate perfection makes an object beautiful. This concept cannot be agreed since ultimate perfection can never be attained for most of the objects on earth. The concept of Ultimate perfection itself differs from person to person. Hence an object of beauty is relative to a particular individual or the given circumstances.

Sublime according to Kant is the ultimate great. Music and comedy are not thought provoking according to Kant but they do provide delight. This ideology also cannot be agreed in this context since Music relaxes the mind such that the thought process can be rejuvenated. Thus music actually helps a person to concentrate harder on something. In practice, the contradiction would depend on the kind of music one is listening to. Jokes are also thought provoking. An individual has to interpret the joke or an act of comedy and understand it to laugh. Therefore the thought process is definitely involved but it can be considered as a diversion which rejuvenates the actual thought process. Universal acceptance of any theory would be practically impossible since it would affect the freedom of thought of at least some group of people. Kant asserts that universal delight is possible if an action is supported by a universal concept. This cannot be considered correct since if that was the case the world could have avoided many wars. Any theory will have to be reviewed and altered periodically since the world is evolving continually. Beauty cannot be described based on principles. It is something that delights the mind and hence cannot be quantified. Any attempt to quantify real beauty will only reduce its dignity (The Critique of Judgment).

Conclusion

Kant believes that setting a new rule for morality, judgment of beauty and greatness can make it universally accepted. This is far from reality. Ethics, beauty and greatness are outcomes of mind which cannot be quantified. It gives mental pleasure which is far superior to physical pleasure. Morality does affect a person’s actions but once it is written down it’ll affect an individual’s freedom of imagination and thoughts. Human thought process has and will always be a vast area to be explored by the philosophers. It cannot be tied down to some written and universally accepted theories. It is this freedom of thought that creates great literary works and many innovations that help in the betterment of human life.

Works Cited

Critique of Judgment. 2008. Web.

Hughes, Glyn . Critiques of Pure & Practical Reason. 2002. Web.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). 2008. Web.

Nineteenth-Century Literary Criticism. 2008. Web.

The Critique of Judgement. 2004. Web.