Category: Immanuel Kant

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 individuals 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 Kants 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. Kants 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 beings 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 Kants 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 Kants moral philosophy. Kants view on virtue is radically different from Aristotles. 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 its 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 Kants 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, Kants 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, lets 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 ones 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 doesnt 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 agents 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 agents 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, Kants 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 Kants 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.

Over the years various issues have developed in the world. Things that were once clear cut as either morally wrong or right, have become very contentious. Various philosophers have studied and proposed different ideas on the subject of morality. Kants moral philosophy holds that the final result of an action has no value; the value of an action lies on the motivation behind it (Kant, 3). Kant argued that there exists an unconditional and absolute requirement that all other moral obligations are based on.

In order for one to uphold the highest moral law, his or her actions must conform to this requirement which he termed as the categorical imperative (Kant, 15). Kants ideology can however be seen as too simplistic when dealing with the modern society characterized by actions that cannot be easily categorized as morally right or wrong; those that may be termed as morally ambiguous.

Kant, a German philosopher, undertook a study to find the ultimate principle on morality. Kant identified three maxims that would enable one to identify morally right or wrong actions. The first maxim states that every person should act in such a manner that the action would be the right action for other people in similar situations (Kant, 14).

The second maxim states that an action is morally right if it treat others not as a means to an end but as an end in themselves (Kant, 29). The final maxim is a summation of the first two and it states that a moral action occurs when one acts as if his actions were setting a universal law that could be used by others under the same circumstances (Kant, 24).

When Kant was developing his moral philosophy, the society was mainly religious and culture played a big part in shaping how people acted. The contemporary society is however less governed by religion or culture and science (logic) plays a big part on how people make decisions or act. Actions that were previously termed morally inappropriate are under fire with people trying to understand what makes an action morally right or wrong.

Kants categorical imperative has three formulations that govern all moral action. These formulations can be summed up by the universality principle that states that all actions should be carried out in such a manner that they become universal laws without contradiction (Kant, 30).

This formulation in itself is too simplistic for the complicated modern society that we live in. One contentious issue in modern societies has been that of abortion. According to the requirements of categorical imperative, it would be morally wrong for a woman to carry out an abortion.

Kant argues that the moral value of an action is not based on its results but on its underlying principle and such action should be such that it can be universally adopted. As such, abortion which is mainly carried out to preserve the happiness, well-being or priorities of the woman, goes against this formulation (Denis, 548).

Kant also puts forward the principles of good will and duty. According to Kant, good will is that will that is derived from moral laws and has no qualifications (Kant, 5). Kant argued that the expected results of an action are morally neutral and not important when considering morality.

He added that good will is the only basis that the value of morality can be recognized. Kant also argued that duty determines whether an action is moral right or wrong. Kant argued that since the moral value of an action does not derive from the expected results, it must then be derived from the principle under which the action is carried out regardless of personal desires or surrounding circumstances (Kant, 7).

It is the basic human duty to populate the world and ensure the continuity of life. Abortion goes against this duty thus it must be considered morally wrong. Modern medicine has enabled deformities and complications to be identified before birth. Kants argument is ineffective as it would be cruel to give birth to a child who will suffer constantly or to put the life of the mother in jeopardy due to pregnancy complications (Denis, 560).

Kants morality principle is too simplistic and fails to take into account circumstances that have developed in the contemporary societies. Decision making in modern societies is carried out with regards to a multi-cultured society as a whole. Simplistic ground rules cannot effectively cover all situations under which an action may be undertaken. Abortion is an action involving two parties, the agent and the fetus.

The fetus cannot be deemed a rational being hence Kant may propose that laws of morality do not apply to it. However, the fetus is a part of the continuity of life and according to instinct (nature), child birth is a duty common to all. It is thus morally wrong to carry out an abortion as it goes against this duty. Kants philosophy cannot cover all aspects found in many contentious issues of the modern world hence it has no place in contemporary society.

Works Cited

Denis, Lara. Abortion and Kants Formula of Universal Law. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37.4 (2007): 547-580

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. Jonathan Bennet. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995

Kant believes that an act has a moral worth only if it is performed out of a sense of duty since his primary premise of his ethics is what ought I do? (pg.176). Kant basis his principles of moral ethics on rational procedures and distinguishes the concept of duty from the self and others (p. 177) asserting that all actions must be performed only out of a sense of duty to acquire some worth and appreciation from the moralistic point of view. Kant also asserts that duties can be perfect and imperfect (p.178). Kant asserts that in doing an action it is not important to consider the desires but rather the belief that the action is right and adheres to the moral law.

Thus, Kant implies that for an action to be affirmed moral, it is not sufficient for it to originate from noble inclination or disposition, only from the sense of duty or good will. Kant also argues that it is not important for the action to be accomplished in its purpose, the fact that it has been done with a true sense of duty and good will makes the action morally acceptable. Kant implies that the consequences of an action cannot judge the morality or motive of an action and that even actions which produce good results are not moral, if they have not been performed out of a sense of duty but with some underlying motives. According to Kant, duties which are perfect are complete and examples of such duties include refraining from false promising, refraining from coercion and violence since these duties are obligations which can be met for others (p. 178).

I disagree with Kant when he states that all moral actions stem from a sense of duty because Kant bases his premise on the fact that as humans we are agents capable of self-determination, and specifically of determination in accordance with the principles of duty (p. 178). Additionally, Kant identifies the importance of moral law and not of conformity since when humans do things because God wants them to do so, they are not acting morally in the literal sense but are only doing the right things because they fear hell or desire heaven. If this were to be the premise of his moral law then all religious humans who show respect for the Divine law and adhere to it would be erring and immoral in their acts.

Kant asserts that when humans act not out of a sense of duty but rather from the fear of God, it makes them do so due to their ulterior motives of pleasing God or from saving themselves from his fury and consequently being sent to hell. If this thesis of Kant is to be believed then God would not hold the Ulterior place in the life of believing humans and men and women would become their judges, affirming their action to be morally right because they performed them out of a sense of duty to do so. Thus, a man who feels he has to save his wife and has no money to buy her medicines would consider it morally right to steal and pay for her drugs to save her life. This presents the flaw in Kants thesis since Kant is driven to a dual view of man in which he believes humans to be both, phenomenal so that they are natural and are casually determined and noumenal in which humans are non-natural and self-determining (p. 178).

References

A companion to ethics  edited by Peter Singer.

A brief overview of the Enlightenment Era

The Age of Enlightenment is a term used to describe the development of Western philosophy, literature and art in the 17-18^th centuries. The rapid progress of humanities in that period was close-knit with economic and technological developments across the whole Europe and North America, in particular, the invention of the internal combustion engine, formation of the new economic class known as bourgeoisie, or self-made people who enriched financially not on the basis of the noble origin, but merely as a result on the entrepreneurial talent; in parallel with the improvement of the populations well-being, Western economies were optimized and rationalized (wsu.edu, 2009). At the same time, rationalism dominated contemporary philosophy and literature, so the Age of Enlightenment was marked with the formulation of moral theories, principles of governance and human rights and freedoms, according to which Europe and North America have been living till the present day (wsu.edu, 2009). The present paper is intended to discuss the philosophical perspectives of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

Life and legacy of David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish thinker and philosopher. As a descendant of the Scottish bourgeoisie, the family of advocate Joseph Home (Hume in English pronunciation) and Katherine Lady Falconer, he received a great education, being enrolled to the University of Edinburgh at the age of twelve for extraordinary abilities and academic performance. Hume never married and dedicated his whole life to history and philosophy studies, which finally turned into a sex-volume History of England, famous for its unusual psychological direction A Treatise of Human Nature and more than ten books and essays on moral theory (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2009). In fact, Hume was one of the first psychologists of morality, his doctrine of human motivation in ethical decisions, a cornerstone of the contemporary moral theory, stated that individuals could not be driven by reason alone in their moral acts and that passions played an important role, even though this idea was not popular at the time of rationalism. Thus, as opposed to the other Enlightenment philosophers, who labeled human emotions as passions and viewed them as useless, Hume proved that emotions were a constructive part of human mental activity, which allowed people to reach consent and establish societal mores and values like the value of life, health or private property (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2009; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009). Hume was also famous for formulating the importance of a persons understanding of moral necessity and free will, as this condition, he believed, allowed humans to comply with moral principles and act righteously in each life situation.

Life and contribution of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German (Prussian) philosopher, was brought up in a simple family of craftsmen and traders. Since the early years, he showed a considerable aptitude to study and thus was accepted to the University of Konigsberg at the age of 16 (Philosophy Pages, 2009). He was interested in a number of sciences including physics, mathematics and philosophy, but received fame and recognition for his well-known works on moral theory and modes of reasoning entitled Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason and Metaphysics of Morals. He is [particularly famous for his Categorical Imperative which states that humans should not be viewed as a means but rather as a goal, or as perfect creatures and rational beings (Philosophy Pages, 2009). Kant also developed a unique concept of goodwill, according to which the goodwill, or human intrinsic motivation for acting righteously, was good in itself, regardless of the results it brought. Therefore, Kant held that a virtuous person was a person who wished good to others and tried to do something for the common well-being out of this good will.

Conclusion

I believe that both Hume and Kant focused on the positive sides of human personality, so their works would seem inspiring and empowering to any reader. Their view on morality is not distracted from reality, but close-knit to human emotions (like in Humes works) and human volition and determination (like in Kantian doctrine). I also believe that the relationship between emotions and morality established by Hume is logical, as immoral acts hurt both physically and emotionally, causing psychological suffering, so it is plausible that moral laws were formulated by societies on the basis of emotions which certain action or deviance brought about. I also accept the Kantian prescription to avoid approaching others as tools and instruments, because if followed by all members of the society, this principle will allow everyone to feel respected and treated properly.

Works cited

1. The Enlightenment.
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. David Hume. Web.
3. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. David Hume: Life and Writings.
4. Philosophy Pages. Immanuel Kant. Web.

Introduction

Kant and Mill offered their take on what constitutes a progressive or civilized society in which people pursue the best kind of life. These authors arguments were related but differed fundamentally in terms of the overall focus. The paper shall look at those issues from a deeper perspective.

The authors opinions on what the best kind of life is

Immanuel Kant believes that the best kind of life is one in which people are in constant pursuance of further enlightenment. He believes that there is no single time where society will have come upon the ultimate truth to which it binds itself to for all time. He further adds that enlightenment is depicted by progress among civilized generations and tying people to a certain symbol would be the exact opposite of this. In other words, he claims that allowing people to expand their knowledge would be the depiction of the best life because this is how enlightened societies are made of. In other words, one cannot claim that he or she belongs to a certain institution without necessarily respecting the truth.

Kant also adds that the best life occurs when anothers rights to pursue enlightenment is not hindered. This means that it is impossible to confine enlightenment within a given time or for a certain individual. Attempting to make such a state of affairs permanent either for one person or society would be moving away from the best kind of life. As a result, it can be said that Immanuel Kants perception of the best kind of life is seen as one in which figures in authority do not impose their own will but one in which they protect members of society from impinging upon each others right to expand their knowledge or their reasoning capabilities.

Similarly, John Stuart Mill concurs with Kants assertions on the best kind of life because he claims that the best kind of life is one in which freedom of opinion is fully expressed; this argument mirrors Kant arguments on the pursuance of enlightenment. However, Mill believes that the pursuance of truth is what reflects true enlightenment or the best kind of life. In other words, while Immanuel Kant was dwelling on the issue of knowledge expansion as the depiction of a good life, Mill was dwelling on freedom of expression as a process of finding out the truth.

This was the reason why Mill asserts that no individual should be prevented from speaking or expressing himself /herself since by doing so, society could be placing an envelope over the truth. It can therefore be said that these author agrees to a certain extent and disagrees on what the best kind of life should be.

Another way in which Mills assertions resemble Kants on the best kind of life is with regard to the role of authority and restraint. According to Mill, people would live the best life if authority understood that it had no right to try and restrain other members of society from engaging in public discussions. Also, authority need not label one side of the debate as being wrong by default or by virtue of the side they belong to.

Authority must be in a position to create an atmosphere that encourages greater levels of discussion in a non-prejudicial or non-confrontational manner where no fact is hidden. This claim is somewhat similar to Kants when he talks about a member of authoritys role in ensuring that anothers right to find out the truth is not hindered in any way. Kant claims that members of authority should not impose their beliefs on members of society but that they need to ensure that the atmosphere for the expression of differing religious perspectives is promoted.

The authors opinions on the final goal of human civilization

Immanuel Kant believes that the ultimate goal of human civilization is to allow a man to exercise his understanding without depending on other peoples guidance. In other words, he describes this as being free from immaturity. Kant claims that society will be truly civilized if people can overcome two of the major obstacles to using their own understanding i.e. sloth and lack of courage. This author believes that the human races ultimate goal will be reached once a man is able to overcome the fear that comes with exerting ones understanding.

This is especially difficult because humans have grown so accustomed to depending on a higher authority that they think it may be dangerous to depend on themselves. Additionally, a man seems to think that exercising ones understanding would be so tedious that it cannot be possibly managed. However, once society manifests freedom, then it is likely that its members will be freed from immaturity and hence will have reached the ultimate goal of human civilization.

Indeed Immanuel Kant believes that human civilization should be characterized by a high degree of freedom. This means that the members of such a civilized society will have changed their way of thinking and that they will be able to pursue their own understanding.

Immanuel Kant however points out that the final goal in human civilization should have just the right balance of religious freedom and civil freedom. This is mostly because when there is too much civil freedom, then religious freedom may not be fully attained. On the other hand, when a certain society is characterized by less civil freedom, then both types of interests can be fully reached.

Mill differs from Kant on what the final goal of human civilization is because he believes that human beings must strive towards truth and justice. He asserts that this can only be achieved once every single person who has an opinion to express is allowed to do so, when different and opposing views are placed on the table for discussion to allow a deeper understanding of the subject if people accept something as true only after challenging it and lastly if there are certain circumstances in which people have been able to apply practically that notion that has been passed as the truth. In other words, Mill asserts that a civilized society should allow freedom of expression at all costs even when it is perceived that that opinion is erroneous or that it is perfectly true.

These two authors are different from one another because certain underlying issues govern their understanding of general perceptions of human civilization. Kant places greater precedence on the issue of pursuance of knowledge and exercising ones understanding. On the other hand, Mill places greater precedence on the existence of different opinions and the ability of society to tolerate all these opinions.

The authors opinions on the relationship of one human to another

Immanuel Kant believes that human beings have the obligation of exercising their own thinking. Consequently, those who have been entrusted with positions of authority need to exercise their ability to reason. Here, the latter author cites three major examples i.e.

• A pastor
• A civil servant
• A member of the military

In his arguments, he distinguishes two major applications of reason i.e. within the private domain and within the public one. He asserts that members of the authority have a duty to apply private reasoning in their work; however, he asserts that this should not be the case for one who is carrying out a public duty. For instance, if a member of the military were to start exercising their ability to reason upon being given a command, then a certain community may be plunged into chaos at that particular time.

However, Kant claims that when taking up the role of a scholar, one should exercise ones reasoning by questioning matters related to his or her position because in so doing, one would be carrying out his right and perpetuating the same kind of approach among the masses that he or she is trying to propagate.

Immanuel Kant further adds that leaders or figures of authority should refrain from pursuing their interests; instead, they must accord members of society a right to choose even when those opinions are totally different from their own. Additionally, this means that criticisms need to be tolerated because they should be seen as vehicles of a progressive society.

John Stuart Mill differs slightly from Kants assertions when it comes to the relationship of one human being to another. According to him, humans have the duty of listening to one another thus allowing differing opinions that could lead to the truth. This author claims that the worst form of misdeed that one human being can carry out against the other is to judge the other as being immoral just because that person possesses a different opinion from the recipients or the popular one. He gives two examples of some of the most historic figures in literature who had been subject to this kind of judgment

• Aristotle
• Jesus

Mill claims that the latter figures are known to be some of the symbolic depictions of truth. However, because they did not possess popular opinion, then they were prejudged as being immoral or wicked. Jesus was condemned to death by the cross and Aristotle received one of the gravest punishments within his society. All these negative actions came about as a result of societys inability to incorporate differing opinions or their inability to accord all persons an equal chance to express themselves.

By doing this, subsequent generations have thus called Aristotles and Jesus society unjust. This means that if the latter individuals had behaved differently, then chances are that they would have moved closer to the pursuance of truth, and also, they would have depicted greater signs of human civilization.

In making this argument, Mill explains that society should not set any boundaries for articulating ones version of the truth even when that assertion is totally different from the truth. In other words, it should not be expected that persons offering differing opinions from the popular ones should be allowed to be zealous about their pursuit because doing so would be assuming that the prevailing opinion is the right one; something that is inherently wrong.

Conclusion

Kant and Mills opinions on enlightenment differ from one another largely because the authors take a different standpoint on what is the ultimate goal in life. Kant believes that the ultimate goal is the ability of society to free itself from immaturity by applying its ability to reason. On the other hand, Mill believes that the ultimate goal in life is to pursue truth and justice by according different categories of people the freedom of expression.

However, when one looks at some of the specific arguments brought out by the authors, it is possible to find some similarities. For instance, both of them claim that members of authority need to focus on creating an atmosphere conducive for expression or expansion of knowledge and that civilized societies are those ones in which differing opinions from the popular ones are allowed.

Augustine and Kant provided revolutionary ideas on the problem of evil. They provided a means with which humanity could understand why they are so imperfect and thus paved the way for correcting those imperfections. The paper shall argue that the Augustinian view of sin excuses man from accountability and that the best way for solving such a problem is through adoption of Kants categorical imperative.

Augustines views on the origin of wrongdoing

The three assumptions upon which Augustine bases his  origin of sin concept is that man was created pure and he/she has a tendency to do good. The second is that evil results from the absence of good thus making evil an undesirable thing. Lastly, man cannot change the inclination to commit a wrongdoing doing by altering his social environment or anything else around him. In essence, Augustine was arguing that human beings are naturally good, however, they were distorted by the original sin and this causes them to be evil. (Outler, p. 40) In this school of thought, he affirms that there was a monumental fall from grace during humanitys inception. Consequently, man lost the freedom that had been granted to him and this is a penalty that all other descendants have to deal with. Augustines arguments present a number of paradoxes that are resolved by the downfall perspective. Augustine asserts that human beings in essence are good and he further affirms that evil is not desirable yet all human beings have an inclination to commit evil. This paradox is therefore resolved by the fall where Augustine explains that man acquired the inclination towards evil when Adam himself sinned. Therefore, through the actions of the first man, everyone else became evil. (Outler, p. 60)

Kants view on wrongdoing

Kant did not support the downfall concept and dismisses it as a falsehood. He however concurs with Augustine that man is naturally moral although man has that inclination towards committing evil. To Kant, one must give precedence to moral principles rather than ones inclination and this is an inner decision not based on any superficialities. (Kant, p. 271) His explanation on the collective nature of sin is founded on the premise that evil is not equal or superior to the will. This brings in a paradox which is based on the notion of evil and how to define. If one affirms that to be evil to be human then man is free from moral law. Conversely, if one affirms that to be evil is not natural, then it is assumed that some external force actually caused it and he cannot be held responsible for adhering to moral law. The paradox is solved by the noumenal self concept. Here, he states that man has two sides which include the apparent and the real. The real human is one who has pure intellect and is not bound by space or time. Conversely, the apparent one is one who eventually unravels himself after certain periods of time. Therefore, man can change morally by subscribing to rational faith. (Kant, p. 47) He can therefore atone himself through suffering.

Why I support Kants views

The Augustinian view of evil has a number of loopholes. First, the explanation allows one to understand what happened to the rest of humanity but it does not cover Adams sin. His type of sin did not emanate from an inherent nature; Adam had not fallen so he was innocent when committing that sin. Furthermore, the type of evil committed by Adam was original so by virtue of its originality, it cannot be repeated. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how such sin can be carried forward to other human creations that followed Adam. Critics often wonder why God could not intervene and stop that transmission. Additionally, if man is currently not guilty of his wrongdoing, then he escapes the responsibility for sinning (Kant, p. 248).

Kants categorical imperative therefore places the responsibility for rectifying ones sins on the shoulders of man. When man chooses to act beyond moral law, then he is conscious of these acts and must be made accountable for them. This is a critical insight to the problem of wrongdoing because it provides a tangible solution towards correcting mans imperfections (Kant, p. 60). Furthermore, because of Kants focus on the driving force or the maxim behind an evil act in the categorical imperative doctrine, then humans can demystify this phenomenon of evil. Kant believes that one is moral when they opt to act in a manner that can become a universal law by any other person who may have been placed in such a position. This means that it is mans imperative to decide whether or not he needs to behave in specific way or not. To this end, Kant offers a means with which man can improve himself. By learning more about life, wants and the like, one can be able to act in a moral way. This implies that one is not born as an evil person; however one has the choice to become evil as one learns more about life. In other words, faiths place in mans life can have a richer meaning upon understanding the categorical imperative since faith can then be understood as a means for making man less evil (Kant, p. 238).

Conclusion

Kants assertions acknowledge that the problem of sin is a concept that will always be a mystery to man. However, through the categorical imperative, he is able to explain why evil occurs and therefore prescribes ways in which man can take responsibility for his actions.

References

1. Outler, Albert. Augustine: Confessions. Texas: Library of congress, 1955
2. Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the limits of reason alone, 1793. Steve Palmquist website

Outline

The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically the concept of the sublime as presented by Immanuel Kant in his work The Critique of Judgment.

After reviewing what the philosopher says about the sublime and putting his perspective into context by briefly looking at how he addresses aestheticism and beauty, the paper will take a closer look at how Kant sub-categorizes the sublime aesthetic sublime experience. The two categories of sublime aesthetic experience shall be reviewed further, giving Kants opinion on what it means to have a sublime aesthetic experience.

The paper will have a conclusion in which I will give my own opinion on why I agree or disagree with Kants elaboration of the sublime.

Introduction

There is the common English saying beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What one man deems to be beautiful, and moves him to awe, would leave another man just as indifferent and untouched. What is beauty, what element of a thing determines that it is beautiful hand renders another ugly?

These must have been the questions Immanuel Kant asked himself, though probably in more abstruse philosophical terms when he set out to write his treatise Critique on Judgment. This text has remained intriguing for philosophers and none philosophers alike for over two centuries now, and is considered pivotal in the study of aesthetics.

In this text, Kant addresses two primary issues: beauty  what I term as surface appeal- and the more complex concept of the sublime, and how judgment and reason play into the understanding and appreciation of beauty. Kant argues that judgment, or the rational faculties, have to be applied in the appreciation of beauty.

This is because there are basic tenets that apply to appreciating the aesthetic in any form, then there has to be a method to it; this method is what is based in reason, and this is what gives beauty its universality. Kant uses his discussions on the universal principles that govern the appreciation of art and the sublime to elucidate on human judgment in general (Kant 27).

It is interesting to note that with the study of aesthetics Kant attempts to bring together the two aspects of philosophy: the theoretical and the practical. Kant postulates that it is actually judgment that is the bridge between these two aspects of philosophy (Kant 15).

The concept of the sublime according to Kants Analytic of the Sublime from his Critique of Judgment

While beauty is limited to those objects that have form, with how well defined this form determining to a large extent how beautiful the object is considered to be, the aesthetically sublime covers even those objects without form (Kant 61).

Kant looks at the dark side of the aesthetic experience, and uses the term sublime to describe it. Ordinarily, when one thinks of an aesthetic experience, the focus is on the good and the pleasurable. However, Kant studies aspects of the natural world that overwhelm us, and instill a sense of fear. The sublime is that which overwhelms us, not only in the physical sense (Kant 62).

Kant categorizes experience of the sublime broadly into two: there is the dynamic sublime, where the viewer is faced with the violent forces of nature but with the surety that he/she can conquer these forces, or cannot be touched by them, and hence the viewer can derive a certain pleasure from the experience despite the fear. Secondly, there is the mathematical sublime, where the viewer focuses on the physical magnitude of the object under observation, and magnitude is measured strictly in physical units (Kant 64).

Sublimity does not originate from the natural object in question, but rather from the feelings of the viewer towards the object. The sublime has more to do with the viewer, what goes on in his/her mind, than what is being viewed (Kant 65).

When one has an experience that is mathematically sublime, says Kant, the object is physically large, like a mountain or a really tall building. The dynamically sublime is that which might or might not be physically large but which exerts a force on the viewer which is not necessarily a physical force (Kant 65).

As Kant asserts, mathematical measurements do not take account of the aesthetic quantity of an object, and thus the magnitude of an object cannot be determined simply on a physical mathematical scale. The aesthetic measure must be considered as well, and this measure is still bound to be limited within units that are comprehensible by human reason, so that the largest unit marks the limits of the measurement of how aesthetically huge an object is (Kant 75).

Thus, in Kants view, the dynamically sublime is of more importance than the mathematically sublime. It is the former that moves the viewer, and that shows an active interaction between what the viewer perceives, and his/her judgment (Kant 77).

The moments of the experience of the sublime, and the subcategories of sublime aesthetic experience

The first moment in the experience of the sublime as explicated by Kant is that an aesthetic judgment has to be disinterested; disinterest here means that the viewer, finds pleasure in the object after judging it beautiful, not finding the object beautiful because of the pleasure it brings.

If we are to apply disinterest in this line, a thoroughbred horse would not be found beautiful for the pleasure of galloping off at incredible speeds and high jumps, but for its physical attributes. Disinterest means that beauty does not have to be functional. Kant asserts that if disinterest is to be applied, then the focus in considering objects aesthetically should be on the form of the object, and not on aspects of the object that would lead to a deeper connection, meaning interest (Kant 92).

The second moment in the experience of the sublime as Kant explains rests on the fact that there are universal rules of what is aesthetically appealing, though there are no universal rules as to how an aesthetic state can be achieved. This is because rational thought is applied in reaching the conclusion of what object is aesthetically appealing, same as is applied to morality, which is also universal.

Thus, it is expected that what one person will find aesthetically appealing will also be appealing to a majority. It is a difficult concept to grasp because it goes against the conventional grain of the viewer determining whether he/she finds an object aesthetically appealing or not (Kant 93).

The third moment introduces the concepts of end and finality, or purpose and purposiveness. Kant elaborates that an object can have a purpose, the purpose being the functional reason for which it was made. Purposiveness on the other hand implies that the object might not have any constructive use, but remains of value.

The aestheticism of an object does not include the external purpose- the utility for which the object was built, or the internal purpose- what the object is intended to be like. If an object is judged on the basis of its utility, then its purpose will be determined on how well it does the job. On the other hand, if it is judged based on how close it is to a preconceived notion of how it is meant to look, then the purpose will be perfection(Kant 93).

The fourth moment in Kants text, as regards the sublime is that aesthetic judgments must be found necessary. Here, Kant is trying to define the parameters within which objects are judged and why it is necessary to notice the aesthetic in an object, a truly daunting task. Kant refers to these grounds as common sense, meaning the shared sense of the beautiful in an object by different viewers, or in other words-taste (Kant 94).

Yet, as Kant points out, the purpose of beauty is not how useful an object is or how close it comes to being perfect. He charges that the sole aim of beauty, at least in the natural world, its purposiveness is dependent on human judgment, without having a specified purpose.

The most beneficial aspect of the judgment of the sublime in regards to the subject undergoing this experience

Kant states that the importance experiencing the dynamically sublime in nature is because it elevates a man to another level of fortitude that is beyond the narrow perception of what men are used to. Experiencing the dynamically sublime equals experiencing a total freedom, because the viewer transcends the fear that is the first instinctive reaction to forces of such magnitude in nature (Kant 79).

Kant states that beauty is a symbol of moral uprightness, since people seek beauty with the same fervor that they seek moral uprightness. It is almost an innate sense in man to seek things of beauty. Beauty inspires goodness in man, and binds him closer to his own moral code. This is another benefit on one undergoing the aesthetically sublime experience.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that Kants study on aestheticism has been central in shaping later concepts of aestheticism to date. That said, there are aspects of his rationale with which I am not in total agreement.

In the natural world, it is easier for the concept of disinterest as Kant defines it to come into play. However, in regards to fine art, art made by man, then this art cannot be totally separated from politics. Though an artist might primarily create a work of art for its aesthetic quality, more often than not, this is not the only reason. There must have been thought that inspired the artist into action of creating his or her piece of work.

Therefore, the artwork has a utility; it makes a statement that the artist wishes to express. Those who observe this artwork will inherently infer the artists intended meaning, beyond looking at the work just for its aesthetic appeal. In this sense, no total disinterest can be maintained.

Kant makes a strong point for how the aesthetic contributes towards understanding human judgment, and how the sublime in nature is tied up with the mans moral uprightness, as well as his awareness of himself.

In the argument presented in Kants first moment, he states that the focus on should be on form to maintain that disinterest, but the aesthetic experience must involve all the senses. We cannot ignore some aspects of the object because we have to observe the object in its totality; it has depth, tone, color and texture. If we focus on certain aspects of the object that are centered around the form, we are not perceiving the object in full, thus we are not experiencing its full aesthetic value.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement. Cosimo Publishing: New Jersey. 2007. Print.

Kant suggested that there is one moral obligation, known as the Categorical imperative, and is constituted from the principle of duty. Categorical imperatives are concepts that are known to be suitable; they are valid in and of themselves; they must be followed in any way if our actions is to obey the moral law.

Thus, categorical imperative acts as the basis of moral obligations. Kants Formula of Universal Law states: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Korsgaard, 2). The formulation suggests that the imperative is both rational and moral.

If it is abused then the subjects are behaving irrationally and immorally. The test for universal acceptance involve: determining the agents maxim; imagining that everyone in the same position as the real-world agent observed that maxim; deciding if there is any contradictions generated from the maxim; if there are contradictions, that maxim is unacceptable in the real world; and if no contradiction arise, then the maxim is acceptable.

Kant implies that categorical imperative is an essential law of rationality and therefore morality should be derived from the law because morality ought to apply to every person despite inclination. Besides, an insightful way of viewing the essence of the universal test is to know that it makes it likely for an individual to test his or her reasons to analyze if they are reasons he or she would allow for anyone.

Arriving at a maxim is always a difficult task, considering the fact that everybody is supposed to arrive at the same conclusions in aspects of duty. It is therefore an issue of what you can will should not result into contradiction. A Universal will generates contradiction in conceptions and contradiction in will (Korsgaad, 3).

Summary of Hegels Criticism

Hegel argues that the universal law of categorical imperative contradicts itself and it only provides an abstract understanding on the moral principle. The concept of universal law does not always happen in reality but only happens as a theoretical notion. Act from maxims implies that we should follow wills that are deemed to be universally acceptable by others.

Sometimes such laws are not always universal. For the realization of duty, Kant has suggested nothing but the form of duty, which is the rule of abstract understanding. For instance, Hegel disagrees with the statement, to defend ones fatherland, to promote the happiness of another, is a duty, not because of the content, but because it is a duty.

The content in the real sense is not what is appropriate universally in the moral principle, since it contradicts itself. With respect to property, Hegel outlines that the respect of property can be a universal principle but the opposite cannot qualify. This is only a formal determination. At times the determination may be absent and therefore there is no disagreement concerned with theft. If there is no property, then it is not respected. That is the problem with Kants principle.

Thoughts on the Criticism

Hegels arguments do not consider the conditions set by Kant in coming up with a maxim. He uses a one way approach to analyze the theory; the criticism does not provide us with the benefits of the universal law. For instance, Hegel uses a benevolence example by arguing that the statement, give your belongings to the poor, is inappropriate.

His stance is that if all offer what they posses, beneficence is done away with; the matter is not what holds good universally in the moral law. However, Kant suggests that logical, teleological, and practical contradictions may arise due to a maxim. The benevolence statement is a form of logical contradiction that is depicted by Hegel. However, giving possessions to the poor does not imply that people perform actions without conscience.

Giving possessions is more than material property as it involves moral support and encouragement. Even though, the criticism is true, Hegel ought to consider that human beings in most cases incorporate other ethical principles, such as the moral rights principle, in coming up with ethical decisions. Different actions are taken in different occasions, time, and places, therefore actions vary.

Work Cited

Korsgaard, Christine M.1985. Kants formula of universal law. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 66, no. 1-2: 24-47.

Synopsis

Immanuel Kant was born on April 22^nd, 1724. He was born in Konigsberg near the southeastern shore of the Baltic Sea.¹ At the time, Konigsberg was the capital of East Prussia. German was the language predominantly spoken in the city. Though geographically remote from the rest of Prussia, it was a key commercial center, military port, and a cosmopolitan university town.² Kant grew up to become a renowned tutor, teacher, lecturer, and one of the most respected philosophers of his time. He published many papers during his academic career. One of them was The Critique of Pure Reason, an enormous volume, and one of the most important texts on western thought.³ He published more critiques in the years preceding his death on February 12^th, 1804.

Background and Early Years

Kant was born into a humble family of modest means. His father, Johann Georg Kant (1683-1746), was a master harness maker in Konigsberg. On her part, his mother, Anna Regina Kant (1697-1737), was the daughter of a harness maker.⁴ Immanuel Kant was the fourth child of Kants. However, at his birth, his only surviving sibling was a five-year-old sister. Many children did not survive early childhood in the eighteenth century. The death of the children took a toll on Anne Kant. As such, he was naming her son Emmanuel during his baptism answered a real concern and heartfelt sentiment for him. However, Kant changed his name to Immanuel later on after learning Hebrew.⁵

Johann Georg Kant had moved to Konigsberg from Tilsit.⁶ At the time, all craftsmen belonged to a specific guild. As such, Georg Kant was unable to break into the trade as an outsider with no guild affiliation. However, his marriage to Anna Regina (the daughter of a master tradesman) on November 13^th, 1715, opened the way for him to make a living as an independent tradesman.⁷ Immanuel Kants mother was better educated than most women in the eighteenth century.

She took note of Kants attention to objects in nature and admired his keen understanding of things and advanced comprehension of his surroundings. The family lived fairly well during Kants early childhood. However, things became worse as he grew older. The death of his grandfather on 1^st March 1729, left Johann George as the sole provider for the whole family. The family had to relocate to their grandmothers house to be able to offer comfort and take better care of her. The new business location was not as profitable as the old one. As a result, there was a steady decline in income. In spite of all this, Johann Georg and Anna Regina did all they could to provide a safe environment for their children.

Kants Grandmother died in 1735.⁸ Though sad for the family, the death took some pressure off the family with one less mouth to feed. There was also less work for the mother and more room for the children. In November of the same year, Kants mother gave birth to another child, a son named Johann Heinrich.⁹ Anna Regina died at the age of forty on 18^th December 1737. Her death was as a result of constant strain. Her ninth pregnancy had also taken a toll on her body and general health. Immanuel Kant was largely affected by the death of his mother as he was only 13 years old at the time of her death.

Education

Prime Education

Kant was a solid and unspectacular student. He was brought up in a pietist household that emphasized religious devotion, humility, and literal interpretation of the Bible.¹⁰ Pietism was an evangelical Lutheran society that focused on conversion, dependence on divine grace, the experience of religious emotions, and personal devotion. It involved regular Bible study, prayers, and meditation.¹¹ Kants education was strict, punitive, and disciplinary.

The boy expressed his aptitude for studies at an early age. He first attended school at the Collegium Fridericianum. Kant sought refuge from the strong and forced soul searching that students were subjected to at the school by enrolling in Latin classics, which were central to the schools curriculum. His later emphasis on reason and autonomy, rather than emotion and dependence on either authority or grace at an older age, may have been informed by his experience of pietism at school.¹² However, his hatred of pietism did not make him respect his pietist parents any less. Kant graduated from Collegium Fridericianum at the end of summer in 1740.

University Education

Immanuel joined college at the University of Konigsberg.¹³ His earlier interest in classics was quickly replaced by a thirst for knowledge in philosophy. At the university, philosophy encompassed mathematics, logic, physics, ethics, natural law, and metaphysics.¹⁴ When teaching philosophy at the university, most of the lecturers applied the approach of Christian Wolff. Wolffs critical synthesis of the philosophy of Leibniz (1679-1750) was popular and influential in German universities at the time.

However, Kant was also exposed to a wide range of people who criticized the teachings of Wolff. There were also strong followers of Aristotelianism and Pietism in the schools Philosophy Department, who heavily influenced Kants thinking. For instance, Knutzens (1713-1751) teachings of Isaac Newton are largely present in Kants first work, Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces. The text was published in 1747.¹⁵ The book was a critical attempt to mediate on a dispute in natural history between the supporters of Leibniz and those of Isaac Newton over the proper measurements of force.¹⁶

Knutzen dissuaded Kant from the theory of pre-established harmony, which he regarded as the pillow for the lazy mind¹⁷ He also discouraged Kant from adhering to idealism, the idea that reality is purely mental. Idealism was negatively regarded by most philosophers in the 18^th century. His fathers stroke and subsequent death in 1746 greatly affected his studies.¹⁸ He left school shortly after in August 1748 to become a private tutor for young children outside Konigsberg. It was mainly because after the death of his father, his finances were no longer secure enough for him to continue with an academic career. However, Kant finally returned to Konigsberg in 1754, where he taught at Albertina.

Early Works

Kant had a burst of publishing activities in the years that followed his return from working as a private tutor. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of the rotation of the earth. His discovery won him the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754.¹⁹ The Universal Natural History and Theory of the heavens in 1755 was a major book in which he developed what later became known as the nebular hypothesis about the formation of the solar system.²⁰

He tried to explain the formation of the solar system from a cloud of gases as opposed to the creation theory, where the solar system was created by God. To become qualified to teach at the university, Kant also wrote two dissertations. The first was the Concise Outline of Some Reflections on Fire. The second was the New Elucidation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Cognition. He published the two works in 1755.²¹ In 1756, he published yet another Latin work, The Employment in Natural Philosophy of Metaphysics Combined with Geometry.²²

After several years of relative calm, Kant released another burst of publications between 1762 and 1764. They included five philosophical works. In 1762, he published The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures: A Work in Logic.²³

Two more works were released the following year. They were The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God and Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy.²⁴ In 1762, Kant submitted an essay titled Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality to a prize competition by the Prussian Royal Academy.²⁵ His submission took second place to Moses Mendelssohns essay.

The essay was not published until 1764. In 1766, Kant published his first work in metaphysics, Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by Dreams of Metaphysics. The publication was heavily influenced by Kants fascination with the Swedish visionary, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772).²⁶ On March 31^st, 1770, at the age of 45, Kant was finally appointed Full Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Konigsberg. The appointment came after teaching for 15 years as an unsalaried teacher. To cement and defend this new position, he wrote his last Latin dissertation, Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World.²⁷ The publication was also popularly known as the inaugural dissertation.

Later Works

Kant spent a decade working on the critique of pure reason and never published any other significant work between 1770 and 1781. Although fond of company and conversations with others, he isolated himself and resisted his friends attempts to bring him out of his eleven-year long isolation. He never surrendered his view that sensibility and understanding are distinct powers of cognition.²⁸

He was also of the view that space and time are independent forms of human susceptibility. In addition, he believed that moral judgments are based on pure understanding. His embrace of Platonism in the Inaugural Dissertation was short-lived. He soon denied that our understanding is capable of insight into an intelligible world.²⁹ The understanding cleared the path for his mature position in the critique of pure reason.

When he finally emerged from his silence in 1781, the result was the critique of pure reason. In this work, Kant tries to ascertain the scope and limits of pure reason. He formulated his critique in terms of questions. The first question was, How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?.³⁰ He argued that judgment is synthetic if it has substantive content. It is more formal if the process of the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject. Otherwise, it is analytic.³¹

According to this critic, a judgment can either be prior or posterior. It is prior if it can be known independently of experience. On the other hand, it is posterior if it can only be known through experience. As such, the practical dictates of pure reason, if any, must be expressed in synthetic a priori judgments. The question of the power of reasons is one that deals with how much judgments can be established. It is the major question in Kants critique.³²

The philosopher believed that principles of understanding could be established only for phenomena or things as they appear to us. As a result, the principles of understanding are recognized as conditions of the possibility of our experience.

The work was largely ignored upon its initial publication. It was mainly as a result of the lengthy nature of the books original edition and the complex style in which it was written. It received a few reviews, which gave it little importance. However, Kants former student, Johann Gottfried, criticized it for placing reason as an entity worth of criticism instead of considering the process of reasoning within the context of language and ones entire personality. As such, he rejected Kants position that space and time possessed a form that could be analyzed.³³

Disappointed by his works reception, Kant wrote The Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics in 1783. It was a summary of his main views in the critique of pure reason.³⁴ His reputation was later rekindled, sparked by a series of important works. In 1784, he wrote an essay titled Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?. Later on, in 1785, he wrote his first paper on moral philosophy, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals³⁵ In this paper, Kants purpose was to seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality. The work was divided into two sections. In the first part, Kant analyzes what we suppose to know and uncovers what that knowledge presupposes.

He infers that an agent who does something out of duty sees doing the action or promoting its purpose as something that is required of him, while a person who acts out of good will sees his maxim as having the form of law.³⁶ As such, he concludes that the principle of good will is the principle of adopting those maxims that you can only to be laws. The work was heavily criticized by Hegel. His contention was that the formula developed by Kant was empty and did not yield substantial and morally correct results.³⁷

Kari Leonhards letters in 1786 on Kantian philosophy made Kants critique of the pure reason more famous. In the letters, Leonhard argued that Kants critique of pure reason could settle the debate on the value of reason by defending the authority and bounds of this concept.³⁸ In 1787, Kant published a heavily revised second edition of The Critique of Pure Reason.³⁹ In the edition, the philosopher tried to explain his critique in fewer details and from a less complex point of view. He continued to develop moral philosophies, notably The Critique of Practical Reason in 1788 and The Critique of Judgment in 1790.⁴⁰

With these works, Kant secured international fame and came to dominate German philosophy in the late 1780s. In 1790, he announced that The Critique of the Power of Judgment would be the end of his critical originality. However, he continued publishing other important works shortly after the announcement. In 1792, he rubbed shoulders with the authorities after publishing the second of the four pieces on Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason.⁴¹

The work was met with fierce opposition from the kings Censorship Commission. The organization had been established for theological censorship. Kant arranged for the pieces to be published through the philosophical department. As a result, he avoided the need for theological censorship. Following the defiance, the king ordered him never to publish or speak of religion in public. Kant published The Conflict of Faculties in response to the kings reprimand.⁴² He also wrote a number of semi popular essays on history and politics in the late 1790s. They included the Doctrine of Virtue and the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View in 1797 and 1798 respectively.⁴³

Death

Kant retired from teaching in the late 1790s.⁴⁴ For nearly two decades, he had lived a highly disciplined life, focused primarily on completing his philosophical system. The system had taken shape in his mind since his early childhood. At the time of his retirement, he believed that there was a gap in the system separating the metaphysical foundations of natural sciences from physics itself.⁴⁵ He set out to close this gap in a series of notes that suggest the existence of an ether or caloric matter.⁴⁶ The late notes, which are known as Opus Post Mum, were never published. They showed signs of his declining mental health. His health worsened at the start of 1800. The philosopher died on 12^th February, 1804, just short of his eightieth birthday.⁴⁷

Conclusion

Immanuel Kant is without doubt one of the most significant philosophers in the history of western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology will have a lasting and profound impact on people in these fields. His criticism of major theories, such as utilitarianism, will continue affecting how these frameworks are interpreted and used throughout the course of history. Many lessons can be learnt from the simple but dedicated life that Immanuel Kant lived.

Selected Bibliography

Books

Burnham, Douglas. Kants Philosophies of Judgement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

Kant, Immanuel. Toward Perpetual Peace and other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Kul-Want, Christopher, and Andrzej Klimowski. Introducing Kant: A Graphic Guide. London: Icon Books Ltd., 2011.

Uleman, Jennifer. An Introduction to Kants Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Wood, Allen. Kant. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Pub., 2004.

Periodicals

Bozzo, Alexander. The Cambridge Companion to Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Kant-Studien 106, no. 1 (2015): 136-142.

Dulce, Maria, Castro Granja, and Gustavo Martinez. Biblioteca Immanuel Kant. Kant Studien 106, no. 1 (2015): 165-168.

Friedrich, Paulsen, James Creighton, and Albert Lefevre. Immanuel Kant, His Life and Doctrine. The Philosophical Review 11, no. 5 (1902): 542-543.

Stark, Werner. Immanuel Kant- Ein Dichter?. Kant-Studien 91, no. 1 (2000): 143-147.

Footnotes

1. Paulsen Friedrich, James Creighton, and Albert Lefevre, Immanuel Kant, His Life, and Doctrine, The Philosophical Review 11, no. 5 (1902): 542.
2. Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 34.
3. Ibid., 44.
4. Christopher Kul-Want and Andrzej Klimowski, Introducing Kant: A Graphic Guide (Icon Books Ltd., 2011), 12.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 45.
7. Friedrich et al., 543.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Kuehn, 88.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Werner Stark, Immanuel Kant- Ein Dichter?, Kant-Studien 91, no. 1 (2000): 145.
14. Ibid., 146.
15. Friedrich et al., 543.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Maria Dulce, Castro Granja, and Gustavo Martinez, Biblioteca Immanuel Kant, Kant Studien 106, no. 1 (2015): 165.
19. Ibid., 167.
20. Ibid., 165.
21. Allen Wood, Kant (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Pub., 2004), 99.
22. Ibid.
23. Kul-Want and Klimowski, 34.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Kul-Want and Klimowski, 12.
27. Friedrich et al., 543.
28. Dulce et al., 168.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Kuehn, 40.
32. Kul-Want and Klimowski, 22.
33. Ibid.
34. Alexander Bozzo, The Cambridge Companion to Kants Critique of Pure Reason, Kant-Studien 106, no. 1 (2015): 136.
35. Ibid.
36. Kul-Want and Klimowski, 43.
37. Ibid., 44.
38. Friedrich et al., 543.
39. Ibid.
40. Jennifer Uleman, An Introduction to Kants Moral Philosophy (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 90.
41. Douglas Burnham, Kants Philosophies of Judgment (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 122.
42. Immanuel Kant, Toward Perpetual Peace and other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 9.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Kuehn, 71.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.

Kants principle of humanity is focused on upholding dignity and respect, which underpin morality. The principle advocates for the treatment of human beings as an end and not as a means. It is a comprehensive approach that applies to all autonomous and rational beings regardless of species (Shafer-Landau, 2014). The reason is that, similar to human beings, other organisms are deserving respect and dignity, which is where the problem arises. Most people assume that humanity holds a given aspect that leverages dignity and makes a given person worthy of respect (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Additionally, human beings believe that they are more deserving of respect than any other living creature. This brings to light a more defensible position or rather a self-interested prejudice as humans stride towards superiority.

However, Kant had a response to this issue that highlighted the fundamental approach behind his principle. He claimed that every organism is autonomous and rational in its way and that it is the differences in traits that make accord others special moral statuses. He held the opinion that rationality is what involved the use of reasons in the pursuance of given goals, being the determinant of whether such goals can be pursued in a morally acceptable way (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Eventually, Kant concluded his argument with the idea that only human beings had the power to engage in such complicated reasoning.

Nonetheless, on closer inspection, Kants theory holds a lot of vagueness. This is because the treatment of individuals as an end is an unclear idea, which makes it difficult to apply (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Additionally, the principal fails to make provisions for the determination of what people deserve. This is brought to the light with Kants views on justice, wherein he believes that justice should be achieved at all costs, which is to an extent a contravention of stipulated moral concerns (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Moreover, the assumption of autonomy is misguided since in most cases, human beings choices are necessitated, meaning that they lack control, which is a reflection of the lack of autonomy. Additionally, in his response, Kant does not explain why people lacking autonomy and rationality deserve dignity and respect (Shafer-Landau, 2014). Furthermore, he assumes that our actions morality depends on autonomous control, yet this is disputed by moral luck, which is critical in choices and judgments.

Reference

Shafer-Landau, R. (2014). The fundamentals of ethics (3^rd ed.). Oxford University Press.