Kant anchors his argument on the difference between pure and empirical knowledge on the premise that human experience is the cornerstone of knowledge. He contends that it is impossible to understand anything before experiencing it. However, he recognizes that experience is not the source of all human knowledge, but just a starting point the first instruction. Accordingly, peoples impressions and their personal repositories of knowledge may also influence their understanding, which is an indication of their ability to differentiate between their knowledge and raw data.
Kant wonders whether there is knowledge that exists independent of experience, a priori, compared to that which develops through experience, a posteriori, and poses the question whether such a distinction exists. The former is pure knowledge, being that it is independent of all experience, while the latter is empirical in nature as it derives from experience. The author discusses a method for differentiating between these two forms of knowledge. He identifies necessity and strict universality as certain criteria for pure knowledge, which he interprets as indication of a special source of knowledge. Humans possess repositories of knowledge that are necessary and universal, therefore, pure. He asserts that pure knowledge is integral to developing experience as it facilitates certainty as guiding rules.
Kant proceeds to identify a philosophical gap in the form of the lack of a means to determine the possibility, principles, and scope of pure knowledge. There are situations where experience becomes inadequate, thereby requiring reason to supplement human knowledge. He identifies metaphysics as the realm where reason necessarily takes precedence over experience owing to the latters inadequacy to facilitate interrogation of abstract concepts. However, Kant emphasizes the need to engage in such abstract enquiries cautiously by interrogating the origins of the a priori knowledge that informs them. He notes that reason enables people to engage in analysis that results in the development of knowledge.
He turns to an evaluation of the difference between analytic and synthetic judgments and explains that the presence or absence of an identity between the subject and the predicate is the determining factor. Hence, a judgement is synthetic where the connection is without identity. Synthetic a priori judgements are embodied as principles of reason in all theoretical sciences. The author refers to judgements in mathematics, physics, and metaphysics as apt examples of synthetic judgements. They satisfy the elements of necessity that does not derive from experience and strict universality. However, the possibility of synthetic judgements constitutes a problem for pure reason, thus, provides the basis and justifications for developing a special science called a critique of pure reason.
Manuels theory of knowledge focuses on the way people perceive the reality of things, basing on their prior experiences. The theory states that, the ability to understand something is rooted from the prior experience with a similar situation. More precisely this theory of knowledge tries to examine in depth; the relationship between rationalism and empirialism.
To a greater extent, Manuel succeeds in bringing out the distinction between rationalism and empirialism and also showing the link between the two. This research paper will therefore bring out the links that exist between rationalism, and imperialism in real life applications.
Introduction
Rationalism can be defined as the ability to sense using prior experience, over a certain complex life situation. At a more precise level, rationalists are those individuals who judge issues or situations basing on what they already know (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Emperialism on the other hand refers to the ability to determine how a past experience, can influence the choices that we make by first applying a sensory test. Basing on this statement, therefore, empirialists have to carry out a rigorous test to determine the relationship between the decisions that individuals make, and the prior knowledge affecting the decisions making. Rationalism and empirialism according to Manuel are interrelated in the sense that, they complement each other (Manuel, 2011: 254-260). On the above basis, therefore, both rationalists and empirialsts seem to perceive different phenomena on the same basis but just that they vary in their methods of introspection.
Rationalism
According to Manuel, rationalists vary in their levels to see the insight of issues depending on an individuals various experiences; which vary in magnitude from one individual to another. In this respect therefore rationalists differ in their views depending on their understanding of various situations, which they have experience (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
In rationalism, the ability to see the insight of things is called institution; which depends on the knowledge gained before, different from the current one and the interrelation between the two. These two different situations are incorporated in the mind; after which then the mind strikes at a point of bringing the two situations together; so as to be able to judge the latter one basing on the former. As Manuel argues, this is the innate knowledge of reality that helps individuals to make judgments over two different situations in their day-to-day activities (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Empirialism
Empirialism is the ability to use the senses to determine or judge a situation; so as to make a decision basing the outcome of the sensory experience. The decisions made afterward are determined by the ability to relate the outcome of the latter situation, with a prior experience. Emperialists, therefore, dont believe in independent reasoning as they assert that; it is out of a prior experience that decision-making concerning the results of a test carried out using the senses that individuals have (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
The link between rationalism and imperialism
Manuel combined empirialism and rationalism and asserted that these two concepts are interrelated and that they complement each other in a way. As it is in emperialism, individuals have to involve themselves by using their senses so as to make a judgment, which he linked with rationalism in the sense that; in both, individuals have to apply their prior acquired knowledge so as to make a decision over an issue.
It can clearly be seen that in both two concepts; past experience is a basic instrument to help arrive at a decision. Manuel also noted that rationalists at one point were empirialists in the sense that; they used their senses to learn a situation whereby it is through this past experience that they inter-relate issues in making a decision. More specifically, both rationalists and empirialists apply a common ability to relate the current situation with a prior one; before making any judgment or decision (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
The Synthetic a Priori Statement of Mathematics and Natural Science
As Manuel argued, The Synthetic which is a statement used in natural science as well as in mathematics; can be well understood in both disciplines either through rationalism or empirialism. Rationalists argue that from instituting a situation we now come to a deduction that involves making conclusions of what we have perceived, from a given situation. From the above statement, knowledge gained from two independent experiences can be interrelated in the sense that; the mind has to link any two experiences and try to bring some relationship between the two (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
The synthetic as known in mathematics; through sensory experience can also be linked to another known through natural science at which a rigorous test was carried out. Mathematicians learn the concept of the synthetic theoretically and in any case of any other related phenomenon, the former knowledge can be used to judge the latter which is done by rationalists. Empirialists on the other hand, have to involve a rigorous sense experience so as to come up with clear results of what a phenomenon is; and then relate it with a prior one so as to make a decision concerning the phenomenon (Manuel, 2011: 254-260).
Conclusion
Empirialism and rationalism are two concepts that seem to be different yet they are highly related to being distanced. From the research, therefore, it has been revealed that both empirialism and rationalism are two concepts, which can be combined to explain various phenomena. As it has been revealed, both rationalists and empirialsts have been found to have a common base of argument concerning their understanding of various phenomena, founded on their prior knowledge of a related phenomenon.
Work cited
Manuel, Velasquez. Introduction to Philosophy , 11th Edition. New York: Worth Publishers. 2011: 251-265.
Looking back into the history of mankind, one can say that Kant was a genius of a man. Or was he insane? He created four proofs to the fact that God does not exist and then he created the fifth one, proving the opposite. He turned human nature upside down to see if there is something hidden within it.
He was the most outrageous philosopher of ancient times, and there has been no one to compare to him since then.
However, the things that are of the greatest interest for modern philosophers, modern people, and their modern problems are one of the contradictions of a humans life.
They are not numerous, Kant himself counted four of them. He called them moments, as if to emphasize the frailty of a mans life and its being rather an existence than a life. Combined together, they create a philosophic pattern of a humans life and show that some things exist beyond the reach of our imagination and understanding.
The first one is the moment of disinterested interest. The ancient sorcerer was good at making oxymorons.
What underlay the concept was the idea of the man longing for beauty even without the desire to own the beautiful thing. Kant practically explained a mans urge for arts and artworks, creating them and observing them, indulging in tasting the beauty and appreciating it. As he put it in his book,
One must not be in the least prepossessed in favour of the real existence of the thing, but must preserve complete indifference in this respect, in order to play the part of judge in matters of taste. (33)
Speaking about the second notion that the philosopher suggests, the moment of free necessity, I would like to say that the philosopher meant basically a habit. There are certain things that we do without asking ourselves whether we want it or not because such a question does not even occur to us because the answer seems obvious. Actually, we are free to do this particular thing, because we are willing and we know this is right, but this is an obligatory thing as well, a kind of a law that is in our blood.
Kants example of this phenomenon sounds like that:
However, this necessity is of a special kind. It is not a theoretically objective necessity such as would let us cognize a priori that everyone will feel this delight in the object that is called beautiful by me. Not yet is it a practical necessity, in which case, thanks to concepts of pure rational will in which free agents are supplied with a rule, this delight is the necessary consequence of an objective law& (61)
Thus, the unnecessary necessity is the idea of the subjective perception of reality and subjective measure of beauty.
The next moment I would like to dwell upon is the moment of the subjective universality.
The moment of subjective universality shows that a man is subdued to a feeling that his idea of beauty is the only right one, and that everyone should think the way this person does and admire the same things. The egoistic feeling can be explained psychologically, and that is what Kant doing when stating the following:
&This is the case when it requires the subjective universality, i.e., the concurrence of every one, albeit the judgment is not a cognitive judgment, but only one of pleasure or displeasure in a given object, i.e. an assumption of a subjective finality that has a thoroughgoing validity for every one, and which, since the judgment is one of taste, is not to be grounded upon any concept of the thing. (102)
And, finally, I would like to ponder the moment that Kant called the moment of purposeless purposiveness. That might sound rather abstract, but there are some points that I would like to draw your attention to.
The clue about this idea is that when passing his judgment to a work of art, a critic should not take into account whether the item has a purpose or not. Art itself has no purpose, so there is no use trying to make it sensible and reasonable, or vice versa. As long as the art exists for the sake of itself, it remains an art and it is beautiful. But from the very moment it starts expressing some ideas and be of some use for people, it is no art. Sometimes it is translated as final without end , so both names are possible.
To put it in Kants own words, the very concept that underlies these words is the following:
In the suggestive aggregation of units requisite for the representation of magnitudes, the imagination of itself advances ad infinitum without let or hindrance-understanding, however, conducting it by means of concepts of number for which the former must supply the schema. this procedure belongs to the logical estimation of magnitude, and, as such, is doubtlessly something objectively final according to the concept of an end (as all measurement is), but it is not anything which for the aesthetic judgment id final or pleasing. (76)
Trying to penetrate the concept of beauty, Kant was aiming at cognizing the world. He was aiming at the nature of people and the world, with its harmony and well-balanced elements. As you understand what makes things seem beautiful, you start understanding what a man I made of. And that can make you closer to the secret of life and death, as well as the secret of the universe. Kant got closer to it than anyone ever had, and, Im afraid, ever will have. Such is the world, mysterious and silent.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Judgment. Trans. Meredith J. Creed. New York, NY: Forgotten Books, 1973. Print.
The theory was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The word comes from the words, deon or duty therefore, the reasoning behind the word deontology is on the idea that as human beings, we have the duty to do certain things and avoid others (Hugh, 2000, p. 6). This theory does not look at how much good might be realized from a certain action but rather it looks at the actions of the individual.
The principle of this theory of ethics has been adopted in various ways to achieve a common goal. For instance, beneficence principles help or guide one to do what is good. Respect of autonomy principles helps in reaching a consensus and allowing people to make decisions that are important to their lives (Catherine, 2002, p. 5).
Justice principles endeavor to ensure fairness in our actions, while least harm principles help in making choices that are geared at causing least harm to many. Therefore, they help in reaching a common goal.
The theory dictates that individuals need at all time exhibit behaviors or actions that can become a universal rule. Individuals should also act in such a way that they treat humanity both in their own person and in that of another, usually as an end and not as a means (Hugh, 2000, p. 7). Furthermore, morality of individuals is judged based on nature of their actions and will, not on goals attained. This is because we cannot control our future despite of the best efforts we put in.
Therefore, we are usually blamed because of the actions that are within us, our will, but not our achievement. Individuals should always do unto others as they would have them done unto them. The theory emphasizes on respect of persons and should be treated with the respect that they deserve. Therefore, individual human rights should be acknowledged and should not be violated.
In my nursing practice, this theory has been of great importance. I have used the theory as my guideline in respecting the desires of my patients. For instance, I have respected their wish not to disclose their confidential information to third parties.
Virtue theory is an ethics theory which deemphasizes rules, or consequences but it focus on the person that is involved in an act (Catherine, 2002, p. 8). It does not deemphasize on whether the act is right, abiding rules, and good consequences of our actions. The most important thing is whether the individual acting is expressing good character-moral virtues or not. As the person character is the totality of the individual character traits.
Utilitarianism theory is associated with the British philosopher by the name John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who developed it. The theory holds that individuals actions are right if only they promote good to majority. The theory, therefore, agitates for the respect of every person through our actions. The critics of the theory question the extent on how the good of the majority goes.
Another ethical theory is the casuist theory. This theory is used in comparing the present ethical problems with the past examples and outcomes of similar ethical problems that was experienced. This, therefore, helps in the determination of severity of a given situation and helps in creating of best solutions in relation to another persons experiences.
Does Justice Require Universal Access to Health Care?
For justice to be realized there is need for universal health care. Universal access to healthcare as embodied in the health systems of developed countries is aimed at securing an equal access to the healthcare. There have been various disagreements pertaining to the accessibility of health care (Jim, 2009, para. 23). Some people view health care as social good and like any other commodity that needs to be purchased. The healthcare should be made accessible to its entire people.
In most circumstances, those people that are not able to access good healthcare services do not have the money to pay for their health, while those who have the resources can afford good healthcare services. This inequality has created disparities and contributed to injustices. Heath care should be rolled out in order to be accessible by every person in need. Health care is important in fostering justice to the whole society. Therefore, I do agree that justice requires a universal access to health care.
References
Catherine, R. (2002). Descriptions of ethical theories and principle. Web.
Hugh, L. (2000). The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons ltd, Inc.
Jim, N. (2009). Does justice require universal access to health care? Web.
The contribution of Immanuel Kant to the modern philosophy made him be considered as one of the greatest and the most remarkable philosophers existed in the 18th century. His ideas on the transcendental idealism, opposition to skepticism and ideas about metaphysics gained him a niche in the world of philosophy. Born in Konisberg, Kant showed great interest in academics and learning.
His work was influenced by significant historical movements in philosophy Empiricism and Rationalism that took place in the 18th century. (Guyer,2010) He found and addressed all the gaps in the contents and arguments of the empiricists and rationalists. It is also believed that his philosophical awakening and reasoning emerged after studying the works of a Scottish philosopher Hume. (Guyer, 2010)
Transcendental Idealism
Transcendental idealism is one of the major beliefs that Kant postulated in his philosophical approaches. Kant claimed that human beings focused too much on appearance but not on their feelings and their inner world (Guyer, 2010). He ascertained that space and time were only immanent forms of human hunch. To advance that reasoning, Kant referred to it as transcendental idealism . (Guyer, 2010)
In his view, Kant appreciated that ones experience of some phenomenon in life was based on how such things appeared to the individual, but not on the way the things precisely were. He based his approach on the acknowledgement of a priori mental function (Guyer, 2010). The appearance of these spectacles, according to Kant, existed outside nature.
Kant and Empiricism
Empiricists like John Locke argued that knowledge was gained through our senses. John Locke, for instance, posited that human beings were born as blank slates (Allison, 1983). The senses synthesize everything the one is exposed to, leading to learning. Dismissing this theory, he argued that it was deficient in explaining the beliefs an individual had on the objects he/she possessed. In fact, philosopher proposed that portions of the belief came through experience that the mind of an individual had undergone (Guyer, 2010)
Kant and rationalism
Kant rebutted the ideas of Descartes on rationalism. Descartes argued that an individual could actually extrapolate the existence of objects outside him/her, basing them on knowledge of his own existence. However, Kant strongly rejected this reasoning. External objects, according to him, could not be known through inference.
Kant and moral philosophy
Kant argued that moral responsibilities were based on categorical Imperative , meaning that an immoral individual breached the categorical Imperative . (Guyer, 2010)
He immensely contributed to the philosophical understanding of ethics. Kant posited that actions could either be moral or immoral. In such a case, the morality could only be deduced from the motive of an action but not from its consequence. He further asserted that only motives dowered actions with moral value arising from universal principles discovered by reason.
This was in contrast with the utilitarianism view of actions. The utilitarianism school of thought laid emphasis on the outcome of actions and not on the objectives. Kant objected to that belief, saying that the utilitarian theories focused entirely on the end result of actions, ignoring the initial goals. Moreover, utilitarianism is motivated by human spectacles and happiness. It ignores the role of reasoning to an individual.
In summary, Kant immensely contributed to modern philosophy; he bridged the rationalists school of thought to the empiricists reasoning and outlined the difference between how things were and how we perceived them. Due to his work, philosophers have established a distinct difference between Empiricism and Rationalism.
References
Allison, H. E. (1983). Kants transcendental idealism: an interpretation and defense. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Guyer, P. (2010). The Cambridge companion to Kants Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
There have been various philosophies concerning the manner in which human beings ought to live in society. Many philosophers consent that there is an Absolute Being who influences human beings to act and behave morally. However, some philosophers refute this claim, because many people have held different opinions concerning what morals are and how to behave morally. This paper examines how Thomas Aquinas and Emanuel Kant present their philosophical views concerning morality.
Aquinas morality
Thomas Aquinas views that morality is part of natural law, which concerns human decisions that could be realized through natural reasoning (Davies 57). Natural law entails self-evident facts that are prompted by the use of reason. When human beings use reason, they will always get the goodness that they seek. Natural law is known to each person. Thomas Aquinas perceives that morality is naturally inherent within each human person. Self-determination and rationality are vital aspects that enhance moral acts. Morality is an absolute reality that human beings must embrace.
Aquinas claims that a virtuous person is morally upright because natural law leads him to be morally upright. This means that people who are morally upright, achieve a happy life. Aquinas affirms that people should acquire knowledge in order to achieve the highest good (eudemonia). Human beings need to satisfy their desire to achieve the highest happiness; they should know philosophy that goes concurrently with theology (Fairbanks 7). However, this might not be easy since philosophy sometimes contradicts theology. Aquinas resolves this by claiming that divine being guides human beings in a correct path, provided that people seek the absolute best.
Aquinas held that human beings exist for an end (telos); there is a reason why human beings exist in life. Aquinas views that the main objective of why people exist in life is to be virtuous. Nevertheless, people have various views concerning what entails goodness. Aquinas explains that people have natural capability to reason while other creatures had not such capacity. This natural capability enables human beings to behave freely and knowingly when handling issues in life (Mendus 23). This natural capability permits people to do their duties appropriately, which are acceptable as reasonable.
Aquinas asserts that utmost excellence is naturally implanted by God in human life. Aquinas opines that human beings can acquire this theological virtue through virtuous habit. God governs eternal law that controls life in the universe according to his ideal justification. Since human beings have rationality that is generated from God, they possess natural law that enables them to perceive what is morally acceptable. Aquinas emphasizes that human acts should be based on reason which is intrinsically given through Gods will (Davies 58). Human beings are intrinsically rational that enable them to control their instincts to lead a moral life.
Kantian morality
Emanuel Kant claims that morality depends on pure reason. Kant opposes philosophers who perceive that morality is engrained within self interest of individuals. Morality is based on reason, but not on self interest, feelings or experience. Kant claims that moral values are not empirical. Morality gives crucial facts that put every rational creature together. Morality could not be derived from empirical facts but on pure reason. Morality is an a priori fact that could only be attained through thinking, but not on empirical experience and self interest (Davies 56). Kant believes that human beings require a priori morality; he presents that empirical motives and self-interest violate human responsibility. Self interest hinders ethical worth is the highest motive of human responsibility.
Morality is based on the good will; a good that is always good without qualification. A good will act from responsibility (duty) but does not conform to responsibility (duty). For instance, a shopkeeper who gives appropriate change from a just intention, and not from fear that he would be caught, possesses a good will. Kant explains that reason should not be used to attain happiness (this is a poor means of an end). Reason provides a will that is an intrinsic good without qualification. Kant explains that happiness, which satisfies all human needs, is too indefinite to be an ultimate end of morality (Fairbanks 5). Kant views that good will is the highest good and is the provision merit that acquire happiness. However, good will is not a complete good.
Happiness is attained when good will is incorporated with complete good
Kant perceived that rationality posses its own independent laws. Kant claims that human beings are rational partly. That is why people experience such independent laws as restraints (as imperatives which they ought to conform to). Such imperatives are valid and known by all rational creatures. Imperative can either be hypothetical (if an individual wish to fulfill objective R, then he ought to perform G) or categorical (an individual ought to perform G). Morality that concerns hypothetical imperative is termed as heteronomous because it entails conforming to laws stipulated by certain individuals (Mendus 21). On the other hand, categorical imperatives are not easy to be comprehended, but their contents are clear. Categorical imperatives are based on the principles that human beings ought to act on values which they can will to all individuals. Morality is based on categorical imperatives that are independently generated because people develop and use their own rules.
Analysis
Kantian morality is more correct and applicable than Aquinas philosophical speculation. Morality is based on duties that ought to be done by human beings. Morality is not inclined within peoples self interest as Aquinas claims. Aquinas perceives that divine being (God) is the creator of everything in the universe. Aquinas believes that Human beings seek God to discover the implication of life in order to attain happiness. Kant contradicts Aquinas argument that human beings emulate goodness of the divine being (God). Kant explains that morality is intrinsically self-contained, which is independent of any external bond. Kant joins free will with morality. This is true as it opposes what Aquinas claims, human beings could only attain their end when they conform to the expectations of the metaphysical souls and what the divine being has a plan for them . Aquinas views that:
Human beings are naturally rational; thus able to do moral acts. God governs human life; hence people have to conform to the divine goodness. Human beings naturally possess morals to enable them to attain happiness. People strive for an end (eudemonia), which is goodness.
Though Aquinas justification is sound, it is inadequate because morality is based on free will, but not on determinism. A free person conforms to his own rational values, but not on what people expect him to do. Kant claims that people, who act freely, use their own legislations, which turn out to be universal laws. This shows that morality and freedom are compatible. Rational beings are free to act morally because they have higher intelligibility than other creatures. Kantian philosophical justification of morality is correct.
Works cited
Davies Brian. Thomas Aquinas: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
Fairbanks, Sandra J. Kantian Moral Theory and the Destruction of the Self. Bouldre: Westview Press, 2000. Print.
Mendus Susan. Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
According to Immanuel Kant ones sexual desires can threaten his or hers basic coherent nature. He specifically thinks that certain sexual practices, including homosexuality, can lessen our respect for not only we but also for others and it go against the basic ethical principles, which every human being should follow. Homosexuality, according to him, goes against a persons duty and is inconsistent with our moral requirements. He believed that ethically a human being, especially a homosexual, must never treat another person merely as a means, but always as an end (Kant, 285).
Discussion 1
Kant says that although human beings do not enjoy another persons flesh some are inclined towards others and through sexual impulse can sometimes make another human an object of indulgence . He says that when a man loves another person it is because he has an inclination towards the other person. However, if love is only due to sexual impulse then it cannot be considered as love, rather it only remains the appetite of that particular person. Kant also opposes to homosexuality since he feels that when a human being is inclined towards his or her own kind then he or she will tend to move away from humanity. In doing so, an individual sacrifices his or her humanity and thus, runs a moral risk in doing so. Kant says that homosexuality is not merely an inclination, which a human feels towards another, but it is the preference for another persons sexuality. This, to him, is among the principles, which degrades human nature totally. When the question of inclination towards ones own sex comes into being, Kant feels that it leads to the dishonoring of sex, as satisfaction come into play. Human nature becomes subdued since due to homosexuality a persons sex becomes the object of anothers desire. This to him is disgraceful. Kant says that this makes humanity merely an instrument, which is used for satisfying a persons inclinations and lust.
He describes homosexuality to be the exploitation of sexuality that contradicts our natural instinct and nature itself and says it is a crimen carnis contra naturam (Gold, 117). He says that in an intercourse among the same sexes or sexus homogenii (Gold, 118), the human being becomes an object of sexual impulse and thus, it ends humanity. He says that by practicing homosexuality we tend to move towards the end of our humanity. Homosexuality does not preserve our species, which should be the basic reason for sexuality. A homosexual person does not help to maintain human kind but, rather dishonors it and thus, demeans oneself even below the level of an animal. Thus, Immanuel Kant says that homosexuality is so corrupting that it brings us to the point where human beings are considered equal to beasts.
Discussion 2
Immanuel Kant further emphasizes on his philosophy by saying that homosexuality takes place against our basic instincts not only degrading human nature but also making a person completely unworthy of his species and thus, basic humanity. A homosexual should no longed be addressed as a person since they do not deserve to be one. An individual has certain duties towards himself, which they must fulfill in their lifetime, but by becoming a homosexual, he or she becomes completely disgraceful and demeans oneself to the lowermost point possible. He says that homosexuality is even more dishonorable than suicide which is the most dreadful of all things but not as shameful as homosexuality. Finally, Kant says that homosexuality is a vice which human beings should be ashamed of since only they are capable of indulging themselves in such disrespectful acts.
Discussion 3
Immanuel Kant intently discouraged homosexuality since in his era it was not something people respected a lot. Thus, his theories sometimes do not fit with our progressive views on homosexuality due to the difference of time and era. Thus, the views he has on homosexuality are all right, considering his time. He puts homosexuality at par with prostitution and even suicide which today is not so but is only an individuals sexual preference. Kants perspectives about homosexuals are very extreme. He says that homosexuals are not to be considered people at all. However, in todays world this kind of a view has no place.
Homosexuals are also humans and there is nothing degrading about being one. They also deserve all the comforts and rights, which a heterogeneous person gets. In addition, morality is not absolute. Whether a person is homosexual or not does not affect his or her morality. As homosexuality is present in reality, it must be somewhat natural too. Kant says that homosexuality is wrong and demeans a person but it is not so. Although some people may consider homosexuality unnatural as it goes against the ways of nature but it is not unhealthy or wrong. A homosexual person does not commit a crime in being the way he or she is.
According to Immanuel Kant, acts of homosexuality are completely unnatural. However, this opinion of his is a bit too radical. It is a fact that homosexuality may be bad for society since if every person became a homosexual then there will not be a properly functioning society at all and thus, society would collapse. However, that does not mean that we label homosexuality as wrong and unnatural. His views were very extreme as he considered homosexuals to be even below animals. He had the opinion that humans should treat each others respectfully and not just merely as means but also as ends. This is where a flaw lies in Kants approach. When homosexual people fall in love with their respective partners, it is not always out of sexual desire but because of love, too. Thus, they love their partners and treat them as ends rather than as means. This is where his theories fail to apply.
Conclusion
Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality to be a crime against nature. He says that homosexuality is immoral since it makes a person go against his or her moral duty. He had the opinion that his morality should be able to hold on to the contempt he had towards homosexuality. He thinks that a homosexual person does not respect others and thus, uses everyone merely as a means rather than as ends. Immanuel Kant said that homosexuality is completely and universally wrong since it violates humanity ending it with respect to a persons sexuality, which actually preserves our human species without adulterating an individual. He also had the opinion that a person who is homosexual is completely degraded and thus, should be considered even below the level of an animal. (Kirkendall and Gravatt, 58-9)
Works Cited
Gold, Steven. Moral controversies: race, class, and gender in applied ethics. London: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1992.
Kant, E. Love and Sex . Morality and moral controversies: readings in moral, social, and political philosophy. Ed. John Arthur and Steven Scalet. London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 285-290.
Kirkendall, Lester, and Arthur E. Gravatt. Marriage and the family in the year 2020. Oxford: Prometheus Books, 1984.
Stem cells are biological cells found in all multi cellular organisms which have a unique feature in that they have a remarkable potential to self renew and form other specialized types of cells and in addition, they are able to produce more stem cells found in the human body.
Scientist confirmed the existence of three different types of stem cell which are; the embryonic stem cell, adult stem cell and the induced stem cell. Among these three stem cells, the embryonic stem cells are regarded as the cells with the highest potential because they can cell divide themselves to form over 220 different types of cells in the human body.
Ethically, destruction of an embryo presents a moral problem because it involves having to favor one important principle over another important principle. These two principles involve alleviating human suffering while on other hand upholding and respecting the value of human life.
The truth is that the two principles cannot be all together respected given the evidence that in order to alleviate suffering to an individual, another individual has to give up living in order for it to be possible to harvest human embryonic stem cells and this clearly violates the value of human life. Those who oppose consider a human embryo being a human being and that life begins immediately after conception hence destruction of a human embryo is perceived as being morally repugnant.
Body
Kant was essentially concerned with pointing out that morality, as the freedom to choose between right and wrong, is achievable in this materialistic world. Since morality needs freedom, and freedom can be attributed only to our practical reason, or will, therefore one can only act in a moral way by submitting themselves to the demands of the will.
Kant referred to this as autonomy. In Kants own words, Autonomy of the will is the property that the will has of being a law to itself. [Morality] is the relation of actions to the autonomy of the will [&]. That action which is compatible with the autonomy of the will is permitted; that which is not compatible is forbidden .1
Kant was of the view that the demands of practical reason are shared by every rational being. This puts our moral principles to the test. For human beings to act with autonomy, they must conduct themselves in accordance to rules which may have been chosen autonomously by whichever rational agent. Precisely, the needs of the moral law are universal.
According to Kant, every moral statement must be both universal as well as willed to be universal. If they are not then they go against the Law of Nature, and if they cannot be willed to be universal, they go against the Law of the Will. The tenet use spare embryos for stem cell research is universal hence does not go against the Law of Nature.
But the tenet create embryos for stem cell research is not universal since there would not be any embryos left to develop into humans the human race would run the risk of being extinct. This goes against the Law of Nature. Embryo research may not be willed to be universal hence it could be perceived to go against the Law of the Will.
Conclusion
People must always be treated as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end. This maxim depends on a persons perception of humanity and whether or not an embryo can be viewed as a person who is entitled to treatment as an end in itself. Kants view with regard to this is ambiguous since he did not also address the potential of a fetus to become a human.
Kants classification of embryos was not clear. If they are classified as things as opposed to human beings, Kant may rationalize embryo research on the grounds that embryos can be treated as a means to an end.
Works Cited
Rendtorff D., and Kemp P., eds. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw. Copenhagen, 2000. Print.
Footnotes
1 Rendtorff D., and Kemp P., eds. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw. Copenhagen, 2000. Print.
The 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes developed a rather primitive materialistic worldview, but it became prevalent among the so-called advanced, atheistic figures, and therefore became widely known. According to Hobbes, the only subject of philosophy (and science in general) is the body, for there are only material and finite objects. God is unknowable, and philosophy cannot judge him, deity and soul are not objects of rational knowledge, but given in the revelation of faith and related theology. Hobbes reduced human thinking to one logic and limited it to simple mathematical operations of comparison and discrimination, addition, and subtraction. This approach is natural for a worldview that reduces all reality to one body, but Hobbess interpretation, even for him, is extremely simplified.
Main text
In the theory of knowledge, Hobbes proclaims consistent empiricism. Logic, in his opinion, operates exclusively with data obtained from experience. The movements evoke impressions in peoples sense organs, and the impressions evoke movements within people. Thoughts are these movements occurring within a person, and they, therefore, are ordinary movements of bodily substances, not containing anything ideal. Consciousness processes ideas through a physiological connection between the material traces of movements. Comparison, conjunction, and separation process simple empirical ideas into more complex ones. In his philosophical works, Hobbes compares this to how thoughts of consecutive numbers arise from combining ideas of individual units. People cannot have ideas of incorporeal objects since the senses do not perceive such objects. Comparison, connection, and separation do not change the simple ideas obtained by experience from sensations, but only consider them side by side, now, in a merger, then separately.
Will, like cognition, arises from impressions of the outside world, and in addition to logical conclusions, the latter generate feelings of pleasure and displeasure. The individual seeks how to strengthen the pleasure and to weaken displeasure. Both are only movements in a persons heart, as perception is movements in his brain. People consider things that cause pleasure as useful and evaluate opposite feelings as evil. The desire to preserve and enhance comfort goes into action, and the opposite craving leads to abstinence from activity.
The result of choosing between actions and abstinence from them is called will. The voluntary choice is outwardly free, but it is easy to make sure that it always necessarily tends toward the most definite attraction considering its underlying roots. Therefore, talking about free will is possible only with significant reservations. In ethics, Hobbes, like most materialists, proclaims the relativity of morality. Absolute goodness does not exist. What is suitable for people is evil for their enemies. The concept of good, according to Hobbess philosophy, comes down to the everyday feelings of beauty and utility, not based on anything more sublime.
The theory of the origin of the state is set forth by Hobbes in the famous work Leviathan. Like all materialists, he proceeds in it from the fact that man is naturally evil and greedy (Hobbes and Gaskin, 1996). It is impossible to look at the human personality in any other way if one denies the existence of ideal principles in the soul and explains everything in it with just material impulses. Hobbes believes that in the original, natural state (before the state), people were equal. However, under their greedy nature and the desire of everyone to rule over his neighbor from this equality, only a war of all against all could arise. It was necessary to create a state to get rid of the fear and danger associated with this universal war. For this, each individual had to give up his freedom and unlimited right to everything, transferring it to one or more persons.
According to Hobbess philosophy, to prevent the renewed war of all against all, all the rights of individuals must be transferred to the state in full. It must become unlimited, and subjects must fully obey the three types of government, which are democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. Only the monarchy achieves the main goal for which the state happened, which is the safety of citizens. Therefore, the monarchical system is the best possible, and an individual citizen must be wholly powerless and insignificant to the state (Hobbes and Gaskin, 1996). As the source of laws, the representative of the supreme authority stands above them, for he defines fair and unjust, honest, and dishonorable. Citizens can rebel against the state only if it is unable to protect the world and only to replace loose despotism with a competent one and then again renounce all its rights in its favor. The supreme power should fully dominate not only in secular affairs but also in determining religious dogma and cult.
The fundamental idea of Kants epistemology is that all peoples knowledge is composed of two elements the content that the experience supplies, and the form that exists in mind before any experience. Human cognition begins with experience, but the experience itself is carried out only because it finds in peoples minds pre-experienced (a priori) forms and conditions for all perception given in advance. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to study these non-empirical conditions of empirical knowledge, and Kant calls it transcendental. People know the world of things intuitively, through sensory representations, but this intuition is possible only because the material brought by sensations is inserted into a priori subjective forms of the human mind; these forms of intuition, according to Kants philosophy, are time and space. Everything that people know through sensations, they realize it in time and space, and only in this temporal-spatial shell is the physical world before people. Time and space are not ideas, not concepts, and their origin is not empirical.
According to Kant, they are pure intuitions that form the chaos of sensations and determine sensory experience; they are personal forms of the mind, but this subjectivity is universal, and therefore the knowledge arising from them is a priori and binding on everyone (Kant and Ellington, 1993). That is why pure mathematics is possible, geometry with its spatial, arithmetic, with its temporal content. The forms of space and time apply to all objects of possible experience, but only to them, only to phenomena, and things in themselves are hidden to people (Kant and Ellington, 1993). If space and time are subjective forms of the human mind, then it is clear that the knowledge they determine is also subjective-human (Kant and Ellington, 1993). However, that Kants views on the essence of things in themselves and on phenomena are not entirely sustained and are not the same in various works of him (Kant and Ellington, 1993). However, knowledge on intuition does not stop, and people get a wholly finished experience when they synthesize intuition utilizing concepts, these functions of reason.
If sensuality perceives, then idea thinks; it connects intuitions and gives unity to their diversity, and just as sensuality has its a priori forms, it also has a reason. These forms are categories that are the most general and independent of experience concepts by which all the rest, subordinates to them, theories are united in judgments. To get the judgments of reason from the decisions of intuition, one must first bring them into the appropriate categories, and this is done through the ability of the imagination, which can determine which type this or that intuitive perception fits into, since each group has its scheme, in the form link homogeneous with both the phenomenon and the category.
This scheme in Kants philosophy is considered a priori relation of time (filled time is a scheme of reality; empty time is a scheme of negation). This relation indicates which category applies to a given subject. Although the types by their origin depend on experience and even determine it, their use does not go beyond the limits of possible experience, and they are entirely inapplicable to things in themselves (Kant and Ellington, 1993). These things in themselves can only be conceivable but not known; for people, they are nouns (objects of thinking), but not phenomena (objects of perception).
Nevertheless, the human spirit strives for its cherished goal for the super-experienced and whole ideas of God, freedom, immortality. These ideas arise in peoples minds because the diversity of experience receives the highest unity and final synthesis. Ideas, bypassing the objects of intuition, apply to the judgments of the mind and give them the character of an absolute and unconditional; thus, according to Kant, peoples knowledge gradients, beginning with sensations, passing on to reason and ending in the mind. However, the unconditionality that characterizes ideas is only an idea, only a task, to the solution of which a person continually strives, wanting to find a condition for each conditional. In Kants philosophy, ideas serve as regulatory principles that govern the mind and lead it up the endless ladder of more generalizations, leading to higher purposes of the soul, world, and God.
Furthermore, if people use these ideas of the soul, peace, and God, without losing sight of the fact that people do not know the objects corresponding to them, they will serve people excellent service as reliable leaders of knowledge. If cognizable realities are seen in the purposes of these ideas, then there is a basis for the three theoretical sciences, which, according to Kant, are the stronghold of metaphysics for rational psychology, cosmology and theology. In ideas, pure reason speaks its last word and then begins the area of practical reason, the area of will.
Conclusion
Among the latter, a categorical imperative stands out for its indestructible demandingness, commanding people to act morally, no matter how these actions affect peoples well-being. Kant believes that people should be moral for the sake of morality, virtuous for virtue; performance of duty is itself the goal of good behavior (Kant and Ellington, 1993). Moreover, only a person who does good, not because of the happy inclination of his nature, but solely for duty, can be moral. True morality defeats inclinations rather than goes hand in hand with them, and the incentive of a virtuous act should not include a natural inclination toward such acts.
References
Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. A. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: With on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns (Hackett Classics) (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
This paper is a discussion on the topic of Kants prolegomena concerning any future metaphysics. It explores the prolegomena in general and pays special attention to part two of the prolegomena, which deals with Kants views on judgments of perception versus judgments of experience.
The paper starts with an overview of Kants views on metaphysics then goes on to prolegomena in general. This is followed by a discussion on the judgements of perception as compared to judgements of experience. The paper is based on an online academic resource.
The Philosopher Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher. He is considered by many philosophy commentators as a controversial and complicated philosopher of his time. It is good to mention that both ancient and modern philosophers can be classified into two categories, namely rationalists and empiricists.
Rationalists are those philosophers who argued that pure reason was capable of explaining nature. They were of the view that the human intellect alone was capable of discovering metaphysically objective truth regarding the nature of the universe and life in general. Examples of rationalists include Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes.
Empiricists on the other hand had the view that the best knowledge was that which was obtained through experience. They confined human intellect to the peripheral role of making sense of the experience. Examples of empiricists include David Hume, Berkeley and John Locke.
Due to his controversial nature, Kant seems to take a neutral position regarding the nature of life and the universe. He is not an empiricist nor is he a rationalist. Instead, he is a critic of both camps and sees their stand as flawed.
He is critical of the rationalists for their content that intellect alone can provide some insights into the nature or essence of things in themselves.
He attacks the empiricists on grounds that experience does not consist only of sensations but its wider in scope to include impressions received by neutral observers on daily basis (Kant and Carus 13).
These two categories of philosophers (empiricists and rationalists) appear to shape the debate on the nature of universe thereby raising the very pertinent question of which of the two (the body and the mind) has a greater influence over the other.
The debate is further characterized by other approaches which are based on whether reality exists or it is our minds which construct reality through perceptions. These two approaches include idealism and materialism.
Idealism can be attributed to Immanuel Kant, who argued that what comprises knowledge is nothing else other than ideas. The ideas about the world constitute reality and therefore according to realists like Immanuel Kant, everything we see and experience is based on mental activities or processes.
Kant does believe that the mind, which is partly independent and partly part of the body (brain), has a greater influence on the physiological processes or functions of the body.
Psychologists bring another dimension in the relationship between the mind and the body, that of consciousness, which works together with the partly independent mind to influence the physiological processes of the body.
The point here according to Kant is that the mind, through consciousness, may affect physiological processes or functioning of the body as a whole.
Kant is also associated with the formalist theory, an ethical model of reasoning which is based on rules or duties of a person. He argues that it is not possible to quantify good and thus, the only moral and ethical acts or deeds are those which are both good and right. Right in this sense taken to mean ones duty.
He emphasizes on the motive of an action rather than the consequences of the action. In this regard therefore, a good act may be done with the wrong motive either by omission or commission. Similarly, an act may be done with a bad motive and produce good or desirable results.
The theory is the opposite of utilitarianism in the sense that it considers both the means and the end, as opposed to utilitarianism which focuses only on the end.
The theory can therefore be said to reinforce the argument that the means must justify the end, meaning that the end should only be considered as good; only of it is arrived at using morally correct actions or deeds.
The theory has been explained as an absolutist perspective in the sense that it considers something to be either good or bad and does not allow for conditions under which a good thing may be considered as bad or a bad thing to be considered as good.
For example, if killing one person is morally wrong, the saving of hundred lives does not have any intrinsic value because it would result to the violation of the moral code of not to kill.
Prolegomena Concerning any Future Metaphysics
This is the second edition of Immanuel Kants book, published in the 1973 as a follow up to his first edition titled Critique of Pure Reason. Basically, the book is a summary of the first edition, with the introduction of new arguments not found in the first edition.
In this book, Kant claims to examine faculties of the human mind in an analytic manner, as opposed to the synthetic approach applied in the first edition.
The book is arguably one of the shortest works by Immanuel Kant. In writing the book, Kant seemed a bit embarrassed by the poor fairing of the first edition, especially with regard to its inability to convince people about the existence of metaphysics as a science by itself (Kant and Carus 16).
Kant describes the prolegomena as a special way of discovering the science of metaphysics and recommends it to both teachers ad learners.
According to him, metaphysics does not have permanent and universally accepted knowledge like the other sciences because the standards of distinguishing error from truth do not exist, and he therefore wonders how metaphysics can be a possibility (Kant and Carus 17).
Kant appears to differ significantly with empiricists like David Hume, especially with regard to the concept of causality, which Hume had attempted to investigate in some detail to establish whether causality is learned from experience or its completely independent of experience.
In his investigations, Hume attempted to derive causality from experience, which was later found to be a mistake because he actually though that the concept of causality was founded on two objects found together in past experience.
On his part, Kant was of the view that concepts such as causality originated from understanding and not from experience. In order to explain this fact, he attempted to analytically handle the question of the possibility of metaphysics by dividing the question into three parts which follow each other in a logical manner.
The parts include pure mathematics as a possibility, pure natural science as a possibility and the possibility of metaphysics as a science.
In the second part which explains the possibility of natural science, he attempted to handle the question of the judgments of perception versus judgments of experience as explained in the following section (Kant and Carus 23).
Judgments of Perception versus Judgments of Experience
According to Kant, what we call natural science is nothing more than contemporary science, which deals with the explanation of nature. He puts the argument that when we talk about nature, we are referring to objects as they appear to us through experience but not things in themselves.
He observes that there is interplay of perceptions and experience, with a very thin line existing between perception and experience (Kant and Carus 25).
Just like David Hume, Kant puts forth the argument that the self is nothing but a bundle of perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity.
He goes ahead to argue that despite the fact that the self is composed of different perceptions which succeed each other, we always ascribe our identity to those perceptions. These perceptions are distinct and actually form separate identities.
But since we keep on perceiving, the collection of the perceptions which succeed each other can be used to define the self .
To put it another way, when we do not perceive, we are either asleep or dead and the self is not present. Although the perceptions are different, they are united by their qualities which give us our identity (Kant and Carus 30).
The fact that we are dominated by perceptions, which alternate and replace each other depending on time and space and also the fact that the mind is like a theatre for different perceptions makes Kants argument not only valid and logical but also philosophical.
Kant argues that judgements of perception comprise more than one empirical intuition and they are only subjectively valid. He gives the example of two intuitions of a shining sun and a warm rock, which are joined together by applying the concept of understanding to make an empirical intuition.
However, he cautions that the two separate intuitions are only valid for the individual making the observations but they become objectively valid when the concepts of understanding and causality are applied, that is, the understanding enables us to attribute the warmness of the rock to the heat of the sun, thus, the heat of the sun causes an effect of warming the rock (Kant and Carus 37).
Kant argues and demonstrates that judgements of perception and judgements of experience do not exist in isolation to each other but they rather occur in a continuum, that is, one is transformed into the other either by the application or lack of application of a concept.
Since the judgements of perception are subjectively valid, they can be transformed into judgements of experience by applying the relevant concept(s).
In the above example of a shining sun and a warm rock, it can be argued that the application of the concept of causality to the two empirical intuitions can transform a subjectively valid law into an objectively valid law of nature.
The objectivity is based on the application of the concept of causality, that is, it is a well known fact that the heat of the sun can cause a rock to be warm (Kant and Carus 40).
But what constitutes pure concepts? Kant argues that pure concepts such as understandings are not found in experience but rather, they are concepts which we use to organize our understanding of our experiences.
Pure concepts are described as a priori in the sense that we use them to understand and make sense of various judgements of perception. On the other hand, Kant notes that judgements of experience are in a sense synthetic a priori and they make natural science a possibility (Kant and Carus 42).
Perception is about our senses. Judgments of perception therefore have to do with what we intuit or sense with our senses. On the other hand, judgments of experience have to do with what we conclude or deduce from our perceptions.
Therefore, judgments of perception cannot be disputed for the mere fact that they are subjective while judgments of experience can be disputed for the mere fact that they are supposed to be objective in nature (Kant and Carus 44).
Kant is of the view that it is not possible for us to perceive things in themselves, that is, our mind is not capable of perceiving things which are external to it. However, our mind is capable of perceiving the impressions which things in themselves make to our senses.
After perceiving these sensations in form of impressions of things in themselves, our mind has to apply a kind of form to make sense of these sensations and make them intelligible. He argues that the best sorts of form to be applied to these sensations are space and time, which form part of our intuitions.
When sensations are subjected to our intuitions of space and time, we arrive at empirical intuitions, which are otherwise referred to as sense data in the sense that they are based on the senses of sight, hearing, feelings and touch (Kant and Carus 45).
In our minds, the faculty of understanding has to do with our thoughts and formation of concepts. In order to transform our judgments of perception to objectively valid judgments, we have to subject the judgments of perception to the faculty of understanding.
Kant argues that empirical intuitions, which are purely subjective in nature, cannot be generalized and therefore in order to transform judgments of perception into judgments of experience, we have to apply the concept of pure understanding (Kant and Carus 45).
To some extent, I agree with Kants explanations of the nature of being and how human beings make sense of the world. Indeed, he is able to demonstrate that intellect alone cannot constitute knowledge because it has to be based on some intuitions, which form part of experience.
He also managed to demonstrate that experience alone cannot constitute knowledge because someone has to make sense of an experience to qualify it as knowledge. His decision not to be a rationalist or an empiricist therefore shows his independent kind of thinking.
The prolegomena, though a bit complex in a way has managed to demonstrate that perception alone cannot constitute understanding of nature and also experience alone is incapacitated to explain how human beings make sense of the world.
A blend of human perception and experience does the trick in an attempt to explain how we make sense of the world. By applying pure concepts such as causality and understanding, we are able to turn judgments of perception into judgments of experience, which are objective and conform to laws of natural science.
Work Cited
Kant, Immanuel and Carus, Paul. Kants Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2005.13-45.Print.