Category: Immanuel Kant

Introduction

The relationship between rational and supernatural, a pointed thought and superstitious belief, has always been ambivalent. On one side, enlightenment thinkers insist on logic and reason to be the foundation for a developed, mature person and society; on the other, supernatural is intertwined deeply with the very nature of humanity. It is through the lens of spiritual belief and superstitious fear that people first perceived the objective reality since the beginnings of history. In a way, supernatural can be considered a form of enlightenment thought: it attempted to explain and categorize various phenomena, fit them into the worldview as rationally as possible, although with primitive tools and ideas. There is indeed a deep connection between supernatural and enlightenment, as the former provided ethical, cultural, social basis for the enhancement of logical thinking the latter used to achieve a new level of reality’s understanding.

Body

For Kant, enlightenment is a higher stage in the development of a person, when they are freed from the pressure of external authority on their thought. Through enlightenment thought, people reach the ability to freely and unlimitedly use their minds and dare to know everything that exists with its help (Kant 1). “Sapere aude!” – “Dare to understand!” – becomes the motto of the enlightenment; however, one can apply the same statement to the supernatural explanations. Both the enlightenment and the supernatural belief dare the humanity to try and understand the world around it, use the minds of people to gain knowledge of the unknown. Although their approaches are fundamentally opposite, as enlightenment thought uses formal logic and reason to try and explain a phenomenon, while supernatural calls for a more spiritual explanation, both are crucial for human development.

Reflecting on the world-historical process, Kant understands its content as the realization of nature’s plan for the human race. By this plan, he implies the full development of all the potential invested by nature in the human race, and, above all, the pinnacle of it – the rational human ability. Kant defines the Age of Enlightenment as a turning point, which is one of the brightest stages in the evolution of the mind in the course of human history. To him, the ultimate maturity – enlightenment – of a person lies in the ability to act and decide on their own, without the outside guidance. Thus, in Kant’s paradigm, a person’s willingness to reassess and rethink the existing doctrines and develop their own understanding of a phenomenon is a sign of enlightenment, and thus, of inner growth.

In this regard, one can consider Ueda Akinari a rather good example of an enlightened thinker, despite the fact that his stories use supernatural as a main set for narrative. Ueda Akinari thought a lot about the essence of fiction, which resulted in the development of his own understanding of it (Akinari and Chambers 38). The analysis of classical novels and stories of the Heian era led him to the question of what a story is, what the reader sees in it, why and how the author creates it. His views come down to the fact that fiction is inherent in literature, which is a tool for embodying the author’s concept and which gives the work an aesthetic value. Thus, in Akinari’s understanding, a work of art was not an illustration of a predetermined religious or ethical idea, rather, it embodied the author’s individual views in the form of a narrative.

Conclusion

Kant’s understanding of enlightenment reflected not only his philosophical views but also his understanding of contemporary society. To him, the real maturity of a person lies in the ability to find inner strength to stray from a well-known path and think for themselves. From this perspective, Akinari’s horror stories reflect the concept of enlightenment in supernatural fiction. Through analyzing folklore and mythology, and applying his own understanding of their meaning, Akinari created stories which, while familiar to a reader in their cultural basis, are entirely unique in their message. This example outlines the deep, intricate connection between the enlightened thought and supernatural.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. What Is Enlightenment? Hackett Publishing, 1784.

Ueda, Akinari, and Anthony H. Chambers. Tales of Moonlight and Rain: A Study and Translation by Anthony H. Chambers. Columbia University Press, 2007.

No one before or after Kant, except Sartre, wrote a philosophical book called ‘Critique.’ Kant chose this title to criticize all his predecessors. The negative connotation was also in his mind. He wanted to make reason ‘pure’ and ensure that no experience or sensation would introduce itself into reason’s thinking. The word may have been suggested to him. Kant discovered that the faculty of reason leads people astray, not tradition or authority. Critique, therefore, means an attempt to discover the sources and limits of reason. Kant believed that it meant laying down a complete plan to guarantee the completeness and certainty of the structure in all its parts.

Critique stands in a twofold opposition to dogmatic metaphysics on the one hand and skepticism on the other. Humans are prone to use critical thinking and succumb to neither. It is not a preparation for a new business but a new way of thinking. It is not as though the seemingly negative business of critique could be followed by the seemingly positive business of system making. According to Kant, this was another dogmatism. He believed philosophy had become critical in the age of criticism and enlightenment.

It is an old concern of philosophy to think critically and to blaze the trail of thought through prejudices and unexamined opinions and beliefs. Kant was aware of it since he wished to proceed and silence all objectors using Socrates’ method. His methods consisted in emptying his partners of all unfounded beliefs and fantasies. According to Plato, he did this through the art of kinesin, which involves separating and distinguishing. Socrates believed that no knowledge follows the examination. Kant discovered that the only rule that holds away overthinking is the rule of consistency, which was later called the axiom of non-contradiction.

Critical thinking exposes itself to the test of free and open examination, meaning the more people participate in it, the better. Communicability implies a community of men that can be addressed and listened to. According to Kant, enlightenment means thinking for oneself. Kant also clarified that critical thinking does not involve knowing what is in someone else’s mind; it is thinking for oneself. Through critical thinking, one can arrive at a ‘general standpoint.’ Kant refers to it as the ‘viewpoint from which to look upon, watch, form judgment’ and reflect on human affairs. Kant clearly states that a general standpoint does not dictate how one should act or apply the wisdom attained from the general standpoint to political affairs. It is merely a perception caused after evaluating variables and coming up with the final agreement or conclusion.

Enlightenment is the ability of a man to step out of immaturity. It mostly happens when an external force does not cause immaturity. Immaturity occurs when an individual is unable to understand a phenomenon without guidance. Immaturity is a circumstance imposed on oneself because it does not lie in the lack of comprehension but the failure to use knowledge without the guidance of another person. Maturity is the courage to use understanding to explain a certain phenomenon. Many people dwell in immaturity long after establishing their ability to come from it due to laziness and cowardice. Others act as their guardians to assist them in coming out of their immaturity.

The capacity of man to pay for any work has led people to dwelling immaturity. It is caused by overreliance since finding someone who can do something for them is very easy. Some physicians determine a person’s diet, people read books for understanding, and some pastors serve as guidance and counseling. With all these and others, people can avoid pressuring themselves to work and explore different phenomena. Immanuel Kant explains that taking steps to maturity is dangerous. The guardians domesticated the animals and made them dumb; for instance, they determined the environment of some animals’ environment so that it would be impossible for them to come out of their comfort zone.

Since an individual is trapped in immaturity, it isn’t easy to work themselves out. Others get used to the fact that they cannot use their understanding because no one allows them to use it. They adapt to rules, formulas, and other aids designed to trap them into permanent immaturity. On the contrary, a few have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity’s shackles and cultivating their minds to pursue a secure course. ‘…prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.’ Kant means that people in power might sabotage people’s brains to keep them from enlightenment. It is compared to putting people on a leash in order to control them.

Kant proposes that the public should enlighten itself and allow freedom because enlightenment is inevitable. He states that some are stuck in the yoke of immaturity amongst the guardians. They must assist every person calling to walk out of it. He despises the guardians for attempting to put the rest of the public in the yoke of immaturity. He states that when the public is enlightened, it may force the guardians to remain under the yoke of immaturity, for the public would finally take revenge upon them or their descendants. The public can only gradually enlighten itself with the guardians’ help.

The main characteristic of human reason is questionable. It is unable to provide the answers to the questions asked. Even though human reason is based on logic and evidence rather than emotion, its ability to explain certain phenomena is incomplete. It has come with various principles to explain this experience. The questions cannot cease to exist; it employs principles that human consciousness cannot resist. Kant’s criticism is that human reason has numerous errors. In the efforts to conceal those errors, the principles are limited and no longer subject to logic or empirical test.

There was a time when metaphysics has crowned the queen of science. Metaphysics explains the first principle of things, concepts, and other abstracts. It was taken over by human understanding and reason since it allows people to explain concepts through the evidence gathered and logic. Human reason planted doubt on the origin of metaphysics which led to the depreciation of the latter. Metaphysics is now considered ancient and was rendered dark, confused, and unserviceable.

However, this conflict between metaphysics and human reason brought about indifference in science. Kant explains that this knowledge, if attainable, should be used to explain a phenomenon that needs attention and reflection. He says that this knowledge of human reason can be used to explain the origin of metaphysics, its extent, and limits reflecting on his principles. Kant clearly states that the problem with metaphysics, as with any other science, ‘is to explains how things happen.’

Kant says that he does not avoid the question directed to reason due to the insufficiency of human reason. On the contrary, it answers them with satisfaction. Even though human reason conflicts with itself, Kant answers all questions according to principles without dogmatism or theoretical knowledge. His main aim is to answer the questions in completeness. Therefore, to fully explain the principle, all questions must be answered. If a principal has one question which cannot be answered, they have no choice but to reject the Principal.

For certainty, he rejects the idea of opinions in his investigations; therefore, everything resembling a hypothesis should be treated as counterfeit. The reader has the right to demand logical and aesthetic clearness and other concrete illustrations which should be provided. He opts to develop principles to explain the metaphysics of nature, which would be richer content than the critique of human reason with reliable conditions and sources. Human reason has the peculiar fate of being burdened with questions that it cannot ignore because they are problems that human reason has given it, but also questions that it cannot address because they are beyond the its scope.

Introduction

Kant believes that the only possible standard of moral obligation is on account of rational considerations leading to willful decisions. He uses the formula of the law of nature and the end in itself, to support the categorical imperative principle as the only command that dictates the universality of actions. Given that morality involves actions that tend to conform to the categorical imperative, then rules can define morality.

Two Formulas inside Kant’s Categorical Imperative

The law of nature formula asks people to consider their actions as rational and objective if there is no contradiction arising once the rules are universal. The formula proposes a decision procedure for moral reasoning and considers rules or actions which will not fail if universalized (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), 2022). The end in itself formula explains the need to treat humanity by recognizing its inherent dignity (SEP, 2022). The formula argues that humans should treat other people not as objects but in a way that reflects their inherent value by rising above instincts.

What Makes Categorical Imperative Special

The aspect of a principle of practical rationality as the supreme condition of morality makes categorical imperative (CI) a special criterion for moral obligation. The principle of CI has special characteristics including being rationally necessary, objective, and unconditional to any natural desires (SEP, 2022). This principle is critical in differentiating moral requirements from immoral actions because the latter violates the CI’s characteristics.

Application of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in Life

My relationship with people both at school and in social places is a good application of Kant’s moral philosophy. I ensure that I treat people with respect and dignity because I believe if my actions were universalized, they would become good laws. Rational beings treat everyone with dignity, not because of the positions they hold in society but because of the inherent value, they have as humans. I am careful with preserving the environment because I would not like everyone to destroy it; instead, I would be happy if everyone took care of it.

Reference

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). Kant’s moral philosophy. Author.

Kant claimed that his “moral argument” was not theoretical but based on practical reasoning. The moral argument for God’s existence aims to create total rational acquiescence even without any chance of knowing. The philosopher’s conclusion is not that God exists or that God presumably exists, but rather that a rational, moral agent should believe in God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021). Hence, the paper claims that according to Immanuel Kant’s “moral argument,” people as moral agents require moral faith in order to continue in moral life.

Kant’s approach to God is based on a philosophical idea of the divine essence as ens realissimum. Insofar as they are consistent with absolute ontological perfection, the atheistic ideas of the Deity incorporate symbolic representations of the traits of intelligence and volition (Wood, 2020). Kant famously refuses to accept traditional theoretical arguments for such a being’s existence. Nonetheless, his theoretical ideology extensively uses the concept of an ens realissimum for regulative reasons, both in metaphysics and in the philosophy of nature, while continuing to insist that this use does not amount to the theoretical cognition of God (Wood, 2020). Kant even spends substantial discussion demonstrating the thesis that only belief in a God as defined by classical metaphysics can meet the criteria of practical reason. He consistently interprets the philosophical difficulties he addresses as being about the existence of a classic scholastic-rationalist Deity. Furthermore, the philosopher’s moral argument does not seek to alter that understanding of God.

It is critical to grasp what Kant means by a “moral” argument for God’s existence. Wood (2020) argues that if individuals believe in God, Kant’s reasoning provides no benefit or advantage, not even a moral or religious one. It does not state that a person should believe anything because embracing it would get them into paradise or make them morally better. Any reward or value to a person for believing is never sufficient cause to believe or provide proper consent to anything. Wood (2020) acknowledges that, at the very most, it might be a warning that such reasons are lurking nearby. For instance, a belief is beneficial because it is genuine and there are theoretical arguments or evidence to support it. In contrast, Kant’s moral argument seeks to provide a reasonable cause for honest and sincere acceptance of God’s existence—assent based on fundamentally practical concerns (Wood, 2020). Therefore, practical grounds might rationally justify an acceptance of the premise that God exists, which is not knowledge of any type and cannot be changed into knowledge.

The core principle underpinning Kantian practical faith is a fundamental contrast between two forms of desire or volition: desire and choice. The philosopher’s moral argument for God’s existence seeks to establish absolute rational assent without any prospect of knowing (Wood, 2020). One should consider whether the assent generated by practical arguments—that is, what Kant refers to as Glaube, or belief or faith— is what people usually conceive as believing (Wood, 2020). Kant contends that all moral actors are rationally obligated to include a comprehensive moral objective known as the greatest good among their aims. Nonetheless, it is impossible to know by evidence or theoretical proof if this purpose is achievable through those activities; and people might be reasonably aware that the end cannot be reached exclusively through actions within their control.

Consequently, this component of the moral argument is wholly theoretical. Nonetheless, it is also entirely negative, lacking theoretical grounds for believing that the ultimate good is feasible or impossible. Nevertheless, Kant asserts, on theoretical grounds, concerning the nature of the ultimate good as humans must perceive it, that if the highest good is attainable, it can only be because a God exists (Wood, 2020). People may accept the existence of God in order to logically establish the highest good as an aim because God’s existence is a prerequisite to the possibility of the ultimate good.

In the case of moral faith, nevertheless, unlike pragmatic faith, the need to pursue the highest good is not conditional or voluntary but somewhat morally obligatory and permanent. According to Kantian ethics, every moral agent must establish this goal (Wood, 2020). Furthermore, all moral actors are in the same situation regarding the theoretical assertion that ties the end with its potential of accomplishment. The existence of a divine creator of nature is logically unclear, regardless of any contingent empirical circumstances, such as those that prompted the physician to make a particular diagnosis (Wood, 2020). These considerations transform the practical reason for acceptance of God’s existence into a universal logical ground of assent, which remains both practical and subjective since choosing the ultimate good as a goal is something individuals may or may not do. A person who did not aim for the highest good may be held accountable if this demonstrates an ethical sin rather than a theoretical error or shortcoming (Wood, 2020). In any case, that individual lacks the practical basis for consent agents have when they establish the highest good as an end.

Kant maintains that moral confidence in God is incompatible with disbelief because it entails the open rejection of the genuine possibility of the ultimate good, which is incompatible with continuing to set it as an aim. He also frequently underlines that moral faith or belief is merely consent in a practical sense (Wood, 2020). Individuals do it as part of their pursuit of the highest good; they must not do it as part of any acts, the explanations for which are theoretical arguments or evidence for their consent. If people commit their lives to the moral mission, they may be considered a widespread pursuit of the ultimate good. Acts of assent for practical reasons may thus become as habitual as acts of assent arising from common belief. Humans’ moral lives are or should be ongoing throughout their lifetimes. As a result, moral belief, as opposed to pragmatic belief, is an inclination to agree on practical goals that might be consistent and widespread in a human being.

To conclude, humans cannot know anything outside of experience, outside of the realm of spatiotemporal-causal order, according to Kant. Therefore, there can be no knowledge of God, the soul, the afterlife, or anything else outside that order (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021). The highest good is an essential link between morality and enjoyment. Morality is founded on practical reason, and the moral agent must behave following maxims that may be logically accepted as universal standards. Kant argued that a moral agent must presuppose God’s existence as a reasonable presupposition of morality. Thus, in the light of Immanuel Kant’s moral argument, people as moral actors require moral faith if they persevere in their moral life.

References

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). Kant’s philosophy of religion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Wood, A. (2020). Moral faith in God. In A. Wood (Ed.), Kant and religion. Cambridge Studies in Religion, Philosophy, and Society. (pp. 27-60). Cambridge University Press. Web.

Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” is a term that denotes a significant shift in his philosophical thoughts as captured in his work titled “Critique of Pure Reason.” The word Copernican described a shift in perspective when a polish astronomer asserted that the earth was the one revolving around the sun rather than the other way around. Like this shist in the astronomical perspective, Kant’s Copernican Revolution upended his theorem that the mind was a passive of sensory inputs. Instead, Kant argues that the mind plays a central role in shaping people’s experience of the world (Kant 156). Consequently, Kant held that the human mind organizes sensory information in a way that makes it possible for people to make sense of what they are seeing. Thus, he concluded that structures and categories of people’s minds were central to shaping their world experience. Therefore, by amending his philosophy on the role of the mind in how people experience the world, Kant took on empiricism and rationalism that downplayed the mind’s role in how people experience events around them.

Before this revolutionary change in perspective on the role of sensory organs in acquiring knowledge, rationalism, and empiricism prevailed and were the dominant thought on knowledge acquisition. Rationalists believed that knowledge originated from innate ideas and logical reasoning. In particular, they believed that certain laws of logic and mathematics were clear for all to see and thus did not need to be verified by empirical observation. They also believed that human beings have some inherent knowledge that is not dependent on one’s experience and that the knowledge is naturally occurring. On the other hand, empiricists firmly believed that knowledge came about because of sensory experiences rather than innate knowledge ideas. In addition, they believed that all knowledge is derived from human interaction with the world through their senses. In this regard, they believed that even the most basic knowledge was gained due to human interaction with their surroundings through the sensory organs. Thus, empiricism and rationalism were deeply opposed to one another in their assertion of how knowledge was gained. Later works on the subject by individuals such as Immanuel Kant attempted to reconcile these two schools of thought.

Kant’s target

Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” targeted the dominant philosophical thoughts at the time, rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists held that the origin of knowledge was innate ideas and logical reasons. To them, sensory organs, such as the mind, played a secondary role. On the other hand, empiricists asserted that knowledge was derived from sensory experience. In their wisdom, the mind was a blank slate to which experience was written. These two philosophical thoughts were the dominant thoughts before Kant’s “Copernican Revolution.” Thus, it was apparent that his work in “The Critique of Pure Reason” was directed at these philosophical thoughts. Rather than completely discredit these philosophies, his work sought to reconcile the seemingly opposed views on knowledge. He believed that the mind was not a passive receiver of sensory information (Kant 154). Rather, the mind actively shapes people’s experience of the world. Consequently, he held that the mind has innate structures that organize data into coherent experiences allowing people to make sense of what they see. Therefore, while his work did not target any philosopher, it was critical of empiricism and rationalism, which until then, had downplayed the role of the mind in shaping people’s experiences.

How Kant differentiates his view from his predecessors

While Kant sought to reconcile the differing views on knowledge held by empiricists and rationalists, his work differed from his predecessors in several ways. One of the ways in which his work differed from his predecessors is that, unlike them, he did not hold the view that reason and experience were mutually exclusive (Kant 192). Instead, he held that reason and experience were necessary for any meaningful knowledge. He believed the mind was actively arranging sensory information into coherent experiences that allowed knowledge formation. In addition, he rejected the notion that the earth was composed of substance that traditional philosophers had held. According to Kant, the earth had no reality, and substance resulted from the mind’s organization of sensory experiences (Kant 156). His views on substance were part of his broader usurpation of the traditional beliefs that emphasized metaphysical speculation. According to him, metaphysical speculation was a source of confusion and controversy (Kant 191). Thus, Kant differed from his predecessors in that he sought to reconcile empiricists and rationalists and his rejection of metaphysical speculation.

One of the things that set Immanuel Kant from his predecessors was his critique of reason. Kant appeared more self-aware of the limits of reason, unlike his predecessor, who saw it as the panacea of all knowledge. In effect, the traditionalists had held reason to unsustainable regard and saw it as the key to unlocking all mysteries in the world. However, Kant maintained that reason had its limits and could thus only operate within particular boundaries. He called these boundaries “the limits of reason” (Kant 194). Therefore, he claimed that reason could not make any meaningful claim of the world outside these limits. Thus, his awareness of the limitations of reason set him apart from his predecessors.

The problems that Kant’s views overcome

Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” overcomes several problems that until then had been prevalent. These problems include empiricism, rationalism, scepticism, and moral relativism. Until then, empiricists believed that even the most basic knowledge could only be derived from sensory experiences. In their view, the mind was a blanket space that learned with each experience. However, Kant emphasizes the central role of the mind in shaping how people perceive the world around them. On their part, rationalists believed that knowledge could only be derived from reason. In contrast, Kant emphasized that reason and experience were central to meaningful knowledge. Kant’s views also sought to overcome scepticism, a common problem with philosophical thought at the time. Sceptics argue that people could never know anything about certainty. Kant sought to undercut them by providing foundational knowledge and truth. Finally, Kant overcame the problem of moral relativism, which views moral values as subject to change from one person to another. Kant maintained that some morals were objective and rooted in reason and should apply to all people equally.

In conclusion, Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” was a fundamental shift in philosophical thought on knowledge at the time. Like the polish astronomer from whom the word “Copernican” was derived, Kant provided a new way to explain the origin of knowledge. According to him, experience and reason were complementary, while the mind played a central role in shaping how people perceived their surroundings. Kant’s view differed from previous views of rationalists and empiricists and was thus seen as targeted at them. However, rather than differ completely from empiricists and rationalists, he sought to reconcile their opposite views into one coherent perspective on how knowledge is derived.

Work Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. OTBE Book Publishing, 2022.

Introduction: The Essence of Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment is the stage of history marked by a fundamental transformation in humanity’s relationship to its inherent faculty of reason called judgment. Before the Enlightenment, society had not sufficiently comprehended and utilized its innate reasoning capacity; it had not operated this ability independently. Humans were incapable of using their reasoning without guidance from someone else, and this condition is considered immature. The Age of Enlightenment requires self-awareness and critical thinking; therefore, the transition to it is a challenging stage in humanity’s life journey.

The Difference Between the Enlightened and the Immature Man

The Age of Enlightenment marked the metamorphosis from immaturity to maturity, which was accomplished because it formed a new culture based on reasoned judgment. Unlike an immature one, an enlightened person can use intellect without outside guidance, which is their primary difference. The capacity for review is necessary for the new man, the enlightened individual, guided by the call “Sapere Aude” (Hesse, 2018). It is significant to note that the transition process is not within everyone’s control. Comprehending the reasons for these complexities is essential to a holistic understanding of Kant’s philosophical ideas and their application.

Obstacles to Consciousness and its Relevance

Laziness and timidity are the leading reasons for individuals to remain immature in life. Any process requires diligent work, and not every individual is willing for such a transformation. This issue is highly relevant today, especially considering that democracy is based on the cultivation of each person of the will and ability to think independently. Driving someone out of familiar structures into something new and unknown requires courage and effort.

It should be noted that Kant presents such an exit in a relatively ambiguous way. He defines it as an unfolding movement but also offers it as both a task and a duty (Kant, 1991). From the first paragraph, he clarifies that man himself is responsible for the state of his imperfection. In this case, it must be comprehended that the man can only emerge from it through the change he will make of himself. The transition process is complex, and not all individuals are prepared for the hardships encountered on their way to perfection.

Kant’s Enlightenment appears as an unfinished and fundamentally incomplete pedagogical project aimed at each new generation. His catchphrase “Sapere Aude” is addressed primarily to contemporaries and represents an implicit demand for support for the program of Enlightenment. It is based on pluralism of opinion with a unity of political will. Enlightenment as a political project is possible gratitude to citizens capable of independent critical analysis of social facts. However, Kant’s article is not about people who lack reason and, therefore need not be taught to think independently, it is not about pedagogy.

He concentrates on a lack of determination and courage to use it without guidance from someone else, on laziness and cowardice to apply one’s reason independently. The chief idea of the philosopher is concentrated around a question of political determination and sense, in which Kant sees the potential for the development of society. At first glance, this point of view seems to be entirely consistent with the position of the traditional class with its demand for unrestricted freedom of speech and conscience. However, for Kant, “public use of reason” has an entirely different meaning.

Desire for Immaturity as an Unwillingness for Self-Reliance

Every man has the desire to be immature, as if one has someone to think for him, one can live in peace. That is why most people find the transition to adulthood tricky and hazardous. It is difficult for each individual to get out of the state of adolescence that has become almost natural to them. This state is pleasing, and such an individual cannot use his mind since he has never been allowed to make such an attempt. For example, when parents are constantly doing everything instead of the child, not every youngster will be ready to take responsibility and start thinking consciously. A similar concern is among adults; if one can use someone else’s services, not every adult will desire to make any efforts.

Nevertheless, Kant’s irreplaceable opponent Johann Georg Hamann, criticizing Kant’s deception of life, considered that the question is not only about laziness and cowardice. If a person does not think independently, it demands a refusal of guardianship of people over people. Relinquishing or reducing custody requires courage because this task is accompanied by a loss of control on the part of the person who is the guardian (Hesse, 2018). The enlightened person faces hardships because he is aware of the world and can analyze it. Therefore, life is more complex and requires active efforts to improve, whereas the unenlightened person is unwilling to take responsibility for actions.

The Modern Enlightenment Era

There has been a severe shift in the public mind in the modern era. In the private use of reason, one rather expresses one’s personal opinion according to position and subordination, while in society, one represents the generally accepted public one. It guarantees the convenience of living, for nothing but words are required to create the illusion of one’s view. Moreover, there are numerous news feeds on gadget screens to form an opinion on the existence of the state and actual hardships. Kant indicated theoretical, instrumental reason as its place in the periphery of the world universe.

The theoretical basis must henceforth remain within the bounds of experience alone. However, the current age works the other way around nowadays. The media are not tutoring minors or encouraging citizens to develop and grow as they fill the free airwaves with information garbage. It has the characteristic feature of being immune to criticism. It does not essentially contain an idea but only has a form that can cause an emotional dependence in the mind of a citizen and the ability to become an identified individual in society (Hesse, 2018). Therefore, it is challenging to call the modern era Enlightenment in the sense of Kant and his philosophy. Current public opinion is formed unnaturally and is not always based on the efforts and awareness of people.

Nearly two and a half centuries have passed, and as a result, one can note how far people have drifted away from the common ideal, the desire for a way out of the state of imperfection. People have set a mechanism to create obstacles to Enlightenment, and conditions diligently reinforce this. For example, individuals try to make Wikipedia payable, eliminate free higher education, and reduce the number of places for those who want to study at institutes of higher learning and now schools. These factors hinder the age of Enlightenment and the development of an intelligent society. For society to move into the type of world that Kant imagines, it is necessary to start with oneself and not be confined to one’s mind and the limits of its cognition.

Freedom of Thoughts and Speech

Freedom of thought and speech is a fundamental human liberty that implies the right to form, hold or alter opinions and beliefs without interference. It ensures the free flow of ideas and enables control of the authorities and their ability to be accountable for their actions. Humanity’s fundamental and ultimate goal in guaranteeing rights is to secure the stability and sustainability of development. World experience reveals that Sapre Aude can be achieved through the improvement of man himself through the methods of education, training, and the formation of the spirit of a civilized person (Hesse, 2018). Unfortunately, society has not yet reached the stage where it makes its history consciously, but it would be a desirable future.

Man and culture do not yet control the evolution of society and the social form of matter movement. Meanwhile, the community can reach that stage as it has an idea of what a mature person and organization should be. Consequently, it can turn the natural-historical process from spontaneous to controlled and consciously directed. If people make an effort, the social form of matter will move from local and finite to fully mature, with an eternal and infinite existence in space and time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is vital to state that Kant set the bar high for humanity, the task of living in reliance on the findings and ways of one’s reason. Centuries later, one can see that progress has inevitably followed the path of the Kantian demand. Still, in addition to those historical forces that carry man along even against his will, Kant spoke of the principle of personal accountability. Every time one follows the Enlightenment, he takes responsibility for the actions caused by his reason. An analysis of the contemporary state of knowledge shows that man today entrusts his existence to a technical civilization, assuming that technology will allow avoiding commitment. Nevertheless, one needs to be conscious and understand that only a mature person is capable of improving life.

References

Hesse, C. (2018). In the other Enlightenment. Princeton University Press.

Kant, I. (1991). What is Enlightenment? (H. B. Nisber & H. Reis.). Cambridge University Press.

A number of strategies exist within the world of medicine that acknowledges a number of very difficult dilemmas. In this paper, the case of premature births is explored from the perspective of Kant’s categorical imperative. This philosophy was chosen as it exhibits both standards found in rational and value-based ideologies. Kant’s thinking encourages the respect of another’s autonomy, intention, and sense of duty.

One of Kant’s strategies in implementing the categorical imperative includes treating the dilemma as one would treat humanity. The main principle included adherence to the concept of interacting with an individual as an end to themselves instead of a means to some other purpose (‘Moral Dilemmas… Can Ethics Help?’, 2016). Within medical settings, this includes treating patients that may not have autonomy in a traditional sense in a way that addresses their needs first. In the case of premature births, this would require medical staff to prioritize the child’s well-being and dignity above other factors such as the parents, the medical staff, or the cost. This allows for the implementation of this principle, that every individual is rational, or reasonable, and is subject to a universal moral law. It dictates that other reasonable individuals must respect the patients’ inherent dignity. Essentially, the concept personalizes the relationship between the patient and the doctor by implicating the common human element between all people.

Another vital aspect of Kant’s philosophy, which almost directly opposes consequentialism, includes the weight of intention over the gravity of the consequences. The principle emphasizes increased focus on the intention of action over the outcome of a procedure or a patient reaction. While this may sound ethically improper, and it may sometimes be, this model of procedure also encourages ethical and medical decision-making in order to uphold the patient’s well-being and dignity in a timely manner (Donaldson, 2017). Essentially, within the case of premature births, a doctor would intend to preserve the best chances of survival and integrity of the baby before they would consider the reaction of the parents or the consequences on themselves or other staff regardless of the outcome. Additionally, certain perspectives promote that if an outcome is negative, it is a direct reflection on the quality of the doctor. However, this type of perception does not account for the intention of the staff and is an inaccurate indicator of a doctor’s character.

Duty is a concept that is often overlooked within contemporary medicine, despite it having extensive roots in medical practice worldwide. Within Kant’s ideology, duty signifies acts that are in accordance with the concept that recognizes and affirms the dignity of oneself and others. As such, it is a direct indication that a physician has the obligation to treat patients as ends to themselves and that their role inherently places them in a position of duty towards patients. While this perspective is largely unenforced in modern medicine, it hosts a number of benefits that would enhance the performance of physicians. Essentially, approaching the profession with duty could turn it into a vocation that requires higher dedication and by extension, improved provision of services. A doctor following this perspective would likely react with a sense of duty towards the premature babies and this may have an effect on their ability to treat the patients.

Kant’s philosophy is not without flaws, as it may encourage the lack of positive outcomes if the intention is more important and lack rationality in certain circumstances. However, it largely encourages a humane approach within a very stressful, demanding, and evolving industry. Essentially, Kant’s perspective aligns the positive practices that are found in more rationality-oriented philosophies and virtue ethics on the basis of moral universal law.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Chase, M. “Using Kantian Ethics in Medical Ethics Education.”Medical Science Educator, vol. 27, no. 1, 2017, pp.841–845.

“Moral Dilemmas… Can Ethics Help?” Vimeo, uploaded by Be Boulder Anywhere, 2016. Web.

Abstract

Ethics are an important part of modern business practices. The most popular ethical models currently in place are the utilitarian model, Rawls’ Justice model, and Kant’s duty-based model, also known as the categorical imperative. All three models have their strengths.

Introduction

Ethics deals with what is considered right and wrong. Within a business organization, individuals make decisions. The process of decision-making is influenced by the company’s corporate culture. Often, an ethical decision will involve rejecting the route that would lead to a quick short-term profit. Nowadays, ethics are an important concept in business, as they directly affect not only the corporate climate but sales and profits as well.

Having a sound ethical policy in place attracts customers and ensures that workers remain happy and do not leave the moment an opportunity arises. A company with an unethical code of conduct, however, risks tarnishing its reputation and lose its employees and customers (Hoffman, Frederick, & Schwartz, 2014). There are three popular ethical theories commonly applied in business – the Utilitarian model, Rawls’ model, and Kant’s model. While each model offers a framework for business decision making, none of the theories is perfect, as there are instances in which it could not be applied. This paper will examine each theory and how it could be used in business practices.

Utilitarianism

The utilitarian approach to business ethics does not divide justice from morality but rather sees one as part of the other, with neither having priority. Utilitarians view pleasure and pain as the feelings that drive individual human beings, and their morality system is aimed at maximizing happiness and minimizing pain (McGee, 2010).

The utilitarian model influenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly on the rights to property, education, and social welfare. In business practices, utilitarian ethics are used as an argument for the promotion of equal education and welfare, for government company bailouts, taxes, and against scamming. All these practices are considered legitimate from a utilitarian point of view, as they do more good than harm.

This is not a perfect system, however. Numerous critics have pointed out loopholes in the framework. It could allow implementing intuitively wrong acts. For example, from a utilitarian point of view, employing child labor in China to work in an American company would greatly increase the happiness and profits of thousands of company’s stockholders (Des Jardins, 2014).

Rawls’ Justice

Rawls’ Justice system is built on two pillars, which define its principles of justice as a means of achieving social equilibrium:

• Equal basic rights and liberties for everybody.
• The social and economic benefits should be extended towards the least advantaged members of society.

While these principles sound socialistic, Rawls believes that a capitalistic society might serve the disadvantaged better by providing incentives to increase productivity and prosperity. In business practices, Rawls’ Justice Model is the base principle behind the practice of ‘fair play’ and anti-monopoly laws (Corlett, 2016).

The critics of Rawls’ model point out that the system unjustly restrains freedom and power, among other things. This factor is very important to business, as the model can effectively curb the growth of large and powerful companies from becoming larger, even if there is room to grow without actually hurting anyone (Des Jardins, 2014).

Kant’s categorical imperative

According to Kant’s duty-based ethics, there are three maxims for the categorical imperative that should drive a person’s decision-making. The first one states that an action could be considered ethically correct only if it could be made into a universally applied law. The second maxim states that people should not be treated as a means to an end. The third maxim asks the people to act as if they were the citizens of an ideal kingdom, both governors, and servants at the same time (Rivera, 2006).

These principles form the base of most modern corporate cultures, as they describe the mechanisms for business decision-making, treatment of the employees and customers alike, and the general attitude towards the company in general for both the executive officers and the employees.

The weakness of Kant’s model is in its absolutist nature. It proposes a model that could be adhered to in a perfect world, while in reality, nothing is as simple and categorical. For example, many companies often revise business contracts, due to shifting economic conditions. At the same time, most business institutions feel committed to the practice of contract-making. If Kant’s model were to be applied to this scenario, contract re-negotiation would be deemed immoral and unethical, while in reality, it is a standard business practice (Des Jardins, 2014).

Conclusion

Although the three ethical models were developed by the brightest philosophical minds of their own time, it is obvious that neither can be used to answer all the ethical dilemmas that arise in business practices. To conduct business that is ethical and morally just, the entrepreneur should be knowledgeable in all three theories, and choose the more appropriate one, depending on the situation.

References

Corlett, A.J. (2016). Equality and liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick. New York, NY: Springer.

Des Jardins, J.R., & McCall, J.J. (2014). Contemporary issues in business ethics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Hoffman, M.W., Frederick, R.E., & Schwartz, M.S. (2014). Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

McGee, R.W. (2010). Analyzing insider trading from the perspectives of utilitarian ethics and rights theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(65), 105-115. Web.

Rivera, F. (2006). Kantian ethical duties. Cambridge, 11(1), 78-101. Web.