The process of making moral judgment is guided by rational principles, which are based on teachings of Jesus and Kant. According to Jesus, people should not judge others lest they be judged too. The principle is usually misinterpreted to mean that it is wrong to make any moral judgment. Jesus urged people to do to others the things they would want done for them too.
Individuals who follow the principles of Jesus regard the rule as universal and golden in making moral judgments (Barry & Shaw, 2013). Jesus also summarized His principles of moral decision making by requiring people to love God with all their heart and love their neighbors as they loved themselves. According to the rules by Jesus, there is no need of fixing rules to guide moral judgments because when people are guided by love for each other they do the right things (Barry & Shaw, 2013).
According to Kants principle, people should act in ways that allow the maxim of their will comply with establishment of the universal law. However, the principle contradicts the rule by Jesus that people should not judge others. According to Jesus, people should only do to others the things that please them. Nevertheless, the two principles are compatible because they are governed by the practical reason of respecting God and humanity (Barry & Shaw, 2013).
Self-interest is another principle that guides moral behavior but people misunderstand self-interest to mean being selfish. It is possible for one to be governed by self-interest and be moral. The only challenge arises when individuals from different communities with different beliefs interact. Studies have shown that all human behaviors are guided by self-interest.
For example, when an individual donates blood it would be perceived as though the donor is selfless. The donor achieves self-interests of feeling good, relieve of guilt and self-esteem. Self-interest is absolute because no one can escape it in what he or she does as demonstrated in the aspect of donating blood.
Self-interest is relative in determining moral behaviors because people do things guided by their genetic make-ups and surrounding environment. The role of the environment depends on the interaction of children with their parents and culture (Barry & Shaw, 2013). For example, on the story of the Good Samaritan a person was beaten up by robbers and left at the roadside.
Among the three people who found him, two did not do anything to help the person but one who was the Good Samaritan behaved differently. Without judging, whether the Good Samaritan was right or wrong people may have different perception on his decision.
Depending on the genetic make-up and influence of environmental background, some people may argue that the Good Samaritan behaved compassionately while others may regard him as a bleeding heart. Some people may also perceive him as having a hidden agenda. Therefore, whether a person behaves morally or not is dependent on how he or she views the situation, which is self-interest (Barry & Shaw, 2013).
Altruism refers to when one does something to benefit others, which include assisting, consoling, sharing resources and practicing teamwork. When a person acts altruistically, he or she does not expect external rewards. However, altruism motivates other people to behave in a way that improves the welfare of other people. Therefore, a person who behaves altruistically cannot be regarded as immoral (Barry & Shaw, 2013).
References
Barry, V. & Shaw, W. (2013). Moral issues in business (12th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Emmanuel Kant is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher who made great contributions to the study of aesthetics, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. The philosopher argues that not everything in nature is guided by laws and that human beings work out of respect for the law. Human beings work under the guidance of the principles, which makes them rational beings.
Rational beings make judgments which are based on the principles and laws that govern the way human beings work. In the philosophers views, our rationality enables us to understand our duty and our obligations to keep promises and to distinguish between right and wrong.
Kants argument is perceived to be correct because one experiences a conflict that justifies the need to choose between right and wrong in the inner person. One can easily choose between right and wrong because of ones moral duties.
In the context of the categorical imperatives, action can be morally right if and only if such an action conforms to the requirements of that particular duty. On the other hand, an imperative that is not conditional is hypothetical. For example, if a person argues that if a person feels happy, then he should laugh. Laughing is a cognitive act, which is based on emotion.
On the other hand, the duty to do right is based on unconditional commands or imperatives that are binding. In that context, the categorical imperative shows that there are no exceptions or excuses for not doing right. The obligation to do right is unconditional, and the underlying maxim is the principle of the rule of conduct. In the philosophers view, human beings are free moral agents who have the freedom and power to choose between right and wrong.
The rationality of human beings makes them to understand and to distinguish right from wrong and to select taking either of the options. The freedom of choice is based on ones knowledge and the reason for ones choice. Peoples actions are based on the metaphysics of morals, which motivates them to do right or wrong.
According to the fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals, good should not have qualifications, and one should be inclined and duty bound to do right. The philosopher argues that duty is the necessity of actions because of the obligations to the law. The distinction between the willingness to do right and being compelled to do right differentiate hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
The argument provides a strong foundation in favor of and against the hypothetical and categorical imperatives. In this case, moral requirements which bind an individual to do right or wrong are based on the standard of rationality. The categorical imperative binds one to the rational impulse to obey the dictates of reason without ifs or buts.
The obligation to obey is unconditional and does not have alternatives. It is important for one to know how to act morally. However, knowing how to act morally requires that the person can use the principles of moral behavior. The philosopher considers human beings as being driven by desires and appetites, which sometimes lead one to do things which are not morally correct.
It is important for a person to embrace the concept of moral worth because it is the most important attribute for human beings. According to Kant, moral worth is the most important element in a person and surpasses the gifts of nature such as courage, resolution, intelligence, wit, perseverance, and goodwill. According to the moral imperative, moral worth is the foundation of a persons ability to do right and is the foundation of the metaphysics of morals.
The metaphysics of morals is founded on the groundwork based on the elucidation of ideas, common sense, and morality. The argument is on the principles on which ordinary common sense or ordinary moral judgment of a person being are based. In this case, the judgment must be done by a person who is purely normal.
When formulating the theory of categorical imperatives, the first conclusion was based on the arguments that have been discussed above. A person can be bound by a duty that is perfect or imperfect. In Kants reasoning, the philosopher regards perfect duty as binding to a person, which is based on logical contradictions and presupposes the existence of a certain condition allows for specific behavior.
The argument was to establish the groundwork for the moral principles upon which the imperatives are based and demands for each persons own rational will. As argued above, the rational will of an individual is based on ones ability to comply with the moral requirements.
He argues that people are rational beings who are bound by certain moral requirements, which is rested in the paradigm that human beings are autonomous or possess rational will. However, the argument differs strongly from metaphysical fact about the will of human beings.
The other argument based on the metaphysics of morals provides the base for the argument on what one is supposed to do or answers the question on what ought I to do ? The argument presents the philosophers findings, forming the groundwork on the metaphysics of morals.
The argument on morals presupposes the existence of reason, which is one of the fundamental foundations of the ability of an individual to carry out their duties based on the obligations to do right. According to Kant, morality is the key to the social interactions experienced in societies. Kant argues that genuine freedom is based on moral conduct. Moral conduct, in this case, operates on the principles and rules that guide behavior.
In that case, morality is not based on happiness or Gods will. Kant continues to argue that good or bad has limitations, except a good will. Goodwill, in this case, is based on a persons moral worth, which in this case, is the desire in a person to do the correct thing without conditional or unconditional external influence. According to Kant, nothing can be done or conceived that qualifies to be called good except a good will.
Goodwill cannot be conceived because of courage, talent, desires, and intelligence. In Kants argument, goodwill is indispensable for making people behave as required. A person with goodwill is not led astray when he or she acquires wealth or a position of honor. Wealth or position is referred to as gifts of fortune.
In that context, the things which people regard to be good do not possess intrinsic unconditional values but are always presuppositions to goodwill. Anything good can be put to bad use if it is not backed with good will. Therefore, goodwill is the dominant factor that is good in itself.
Goodwill is not good because of the results of doing good, but the intrinsic values that define the paradigm. In that context, goodwill can bring happiness and is more important than the happiness it brings. Goodwill is something that is valued and has intrinsic values that make it a good thing, even if it is not used to bring good.
By Kants argument, there are different examples of Kants categorical imperatives. Kant provides two examples of the categorical imperatives which include the need for a person to behave in such a way as to make the action universal and the need to treat others as an end in them rather than a means to that end. According to Kant, people should behave in such a way that their actions reflect their wishes.
In that case, a person can decide to commit suicide because he is living in a lot of pain. Deciding to commit suicide will relief the person of the pain, but according to Kants categorical imperative, such an argument cannot be a universal maxim, and the person cannot be allowed to commit suicide.
However, if the person, who in this case is the agent committing suicide, can convince others that the action can be done and so that it is adapted to become a universal principle, then the person can be allowed to commit suicide. The second example, which is based on helping others, shows our obligations for charitable support.
In this case, someone can flourish financially and materially but can decide not to give anything for charity. In that case, the maxim is not to give anything for charity. Typically, the person is not willing to give for charity and is not morally right because the action cannot become universal. However, if the person doing the act can make it universal, then it can be argued that the action is morally correct.
In another argument by Kant says that act that you treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. According to Kant, it is not acceptable to treat others against what they want or against their wishes. A person has to make rational assent to be treated in a certain way. People are to be treated in the best way they want, and the treatment is to be based on reason.
In conclusion, the discussion has focused on Kants moral imperatives of physical morals. The argument is in search of the answers to the questions on whether the imperatives yield clear moral answers. In response to the inquiry, Kant presents arguments based on prudential, rational, and moral requirements.
He argues that the demands exercised on our will instead of the results of our external actions justify the argument that our actions are motivated by the principles of morality and the prudential evaluation of our will to perform certain actions. It is important to note here that the rationale we provide for an action, such as for doing our duty provides the answer to the imperative we have based our decision.
In the essay What Is Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant provides readers with the definition of enlightenment as well as the path towards it. In his own words, enlightenment may be defined as mans release from his self-imposed tutelage. The tutelage, which can also be perceived as immaturity, is the concept by which an individual perceives the world and is unable to utilize their own understanding without the guidance of others. As such, enlightenment may be achieved in the case in which a person gains the courage to rely on their own understandings and reasonings to guide their lives and beliefs.
Kant proposes that the state of unenlightenment is easy as it allows for complete reliance on others. As such, the foundation for enlightenment is rooted in freedom, and Kant believed that in the case that freedom is granted, people are likely to follow enlightenment in order to achieve it. However, Kant argues that most are not free in most senses. Even authoritarian figures lack freedom as they are victims of their own systems, which have been inherited and will continue to exist after them. He elaborates by making a distinction between public freedom and civic duty. Public freedom refers to the ability to criticize and discuss existing structures such as the military or taxation. However, when one is faced with civic duty, such as the order to pay bills or perform military tasks, one must do so as a result of their civic duty.
In the closing paragraphs of the essay, Kant discusses the further complexities of enlightenment through the lenses of civil, spiritual, and intellectual freedoms. He argues that those that are with less civil freedom are, in fact, those that uphold greater freedom in areas of intellect and spirituality. As a result, individuals with greater intellectual freedom improve the health of society by perceiving all people as having dignity.
Immanuel Kants essay Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment? contains the thoughts of a philosopher about the distinguishing features of a person of the Enlightenment era. For Kant, it is a turning point in the historical development of humanity, which is aimed at realizing a persons mental abilities laid down by nature. In Kants understanding, only a person who can think independently, without relying on the opinion of others, reaches maturity. The main ideas and arguments presented in the essay need to be systematized and summarized for a better understanding of Kants philosophy.
In the essay, Kant focuses on the principles of independence, freedom, and restrictions, which in his opinion, are keys to Enlightenment thinking. In Kants understanding, the ability to make independent and reasonable judgments is an exit from the state of immaturity. Kant claims that for a long time, humanity did not realize and did not use its inherent ability to make independent judgments appropriately. Moreover, Kant states that a person is the cause of this prolonged immaturity. People do not have enough courage to start thinking independently, and it is convenient for them to remain immature all life and to think under the guidance of others.
According to the philosopher, the key to the emergence of independent thinking is the presence of freedom. In conditions of freedom, the education of society is virtually inevitable. Moreover, Kant declares that restricting the freedom of judgment for a person can be considered a restriction of his freedom in general, which is the greatest crime against society. The imposition of dogmas and beliefs that are not characteristic of people leads to the fact that humanity cannot reach its maturity and cannot advance in its historical development.
In this context, much attention is paid to the role of religion in society. For Kant, the imposition of religious dogmas is an example of a flagrant lack of freedom in the possibility of independent judgment. The philosopher claims that people who blindly obey religious dogmas are at the highest level of immaturity because they blindly agree with attitudes that no one has ever questioned. Thus, Kant recommends avoiding dogmatic politics and giving society freedom in matters of religion to create an enlightened society.
However, along with freedom, Kant talks about the importance of having certain restrictions. These restrictions can contribute to the enlightenment of society as effectively as complete freedom. The philosopher draws a line between the citizens and scholars freedom and claims that a citizen must have certain restrictions. A person must follow the procedures established by the authorities and, for example, pay taxes, and at the same time, should have the right to express his disagreement with the need to pay taxes publicly. Sometimes it looks like the less freedom a citizen has, the more a scholar has. The same applies to public and private use of ones reason. Freedom should extend only to the public sphere and be limited to private use of reason to maintain public order.
Thus, by Enlightenment, Kant understands the transition of human consciousness from the stage of unquestioning perception of other peoples thoughts and attitudes to the stage of formation by a person of his independent judgments. However, the creation of an enlightened society must follow certain principles. A person as a scholar needs freedom to think; however, a citizens freedom must be limited and controlled to avoid chaos in society.
Kant coined his universalizing formulation in order to deduce a principle of evaluating the actions to be produced by a human being with consciousness and reason. The formulation aims at establishing moral conditions of mind satisfying humanity as a whole and each person in particular. The formulation could justify itself; namely, the invocation of the general will of all humans guarantees the consistency and applicability of the thesis. To be precise, the categorical imperative commands people to act so that the effects of their deeds would be in accordance with their will. In turn, their will includes the need to be treated so as to establish their good. Since every human desire to attain good (however, in different ways), the most common desire would be to follow the law or set of principles that could satisfy others. Then, the moral will be to fulfill this common desire to benefit oneself and other people, which tests the strength of volition. Hence, the categorical imperative is self-evident but not recognizable by people with a mere understanding of the nature of will.
I will discuss in terms of the universalizing formulation of a situation of putting a beware of dog sign on my front door while I have none. The motivation behind such an action could be a desire to reduce the probability of intervention on my property by intimidating people. Suggestively, I will do that because of the need for security and the elimination of any disturbance. Although the sign may prevent visits from intruders or even burglars, it may emotionally distress my neighbors and friends. Moreover, after recognizing that the sign yet may not indicate the presence of a dog, others may bear this knowledge when seeing other signs of the same use. Applying Kants categorical imperative for the case would be as follows:
Step 1: To determine the maxim of action.
For my wish for safety and calmness, I can use the sign that would prevent others from entering my property effectively, although the signs purpose does not correspond to my use of it.
Step 2: To Formulate the maxim as universal.
When anyone wants to protect their house from intervention or disturbance of unwanted guests, they could place the sign Beware of the dog on their doors and expect the effectiveness of this effort.
Step 3: To determine if the maxim is genuinely universal.
Since the signs purpose would be ignored by people who place it, it would not serve them. Burglars and unwanted guests will recognize the falsity of the sign and stop considering it a threat.
Various political philosophers have developed different concepts to help in the definition of moral limits of a liberal ethical approach, among other factors. This paper is an analysis of how different but relatively related concepts designed by three authors, viz. Immanuel Kant, Michael Sandel, and Hannah Arendt affect each other. These concepts include transparency as developed by Immanuel Kant, markets coupled with how they govern human lives by Michael Sandel, and human rights as developed by Hannah Arendt. The grounds for the interlink lies in the fundamental moral acceptance of the mainstream state of a person.
This article will argue that these three concepts are centered on the individual right to choose and the legal measures that enhance fair and just environs for facilitating such free will for everyone. The three authors share the theme of communicating political thoughts. Therefore, this article will evaluate the claim that these authors various concepts advance moral commitment, which is intertwined with the good livelihood that everyone wishes to pursue. These expectations thrive on the establishment of a community that embraces the moral philosophy concerned with equality and justice for all individuals.
Sandels perspective
Does the market develop a diverse set of behaviors, beliefs, and social ties? Upon what type of moral order do markets hold? Do markets provide universal solutions to human problems? These questions will serve as the projection upon which Sandels issues evolve. This section evaluates how Sandels market concept approaches the association between transparencies and human rights. His line of research views markets as moral projects, and it aims to explore the approaches by which such endeavors are actualized. Contemporary society presents almost everything in the market, meaning that it is possible to buy or sell anything. Gradually, markets are governing humanity in many ways, for instance, a good or service that can be bought, but whose monetary trade is morally debatable (Sandel, 2012).
Sandel gives an example of body organs such as hearts or kidneys. Some individuals promote markets engaged in organs for transplantation. Other people find such markets as morally unacceptable. If it is morally wrong to buy a heart, then money should not serve as a universal solution. In a bid to determine whether markets should serve to unify all moral controversies, Sandel has engaged a moral inquiry by evaluating the claims supporting markets as universal solutions and those against such principles. In a bid to understand such connections, it is good to examine where markets belong and how they should influence human coexistence.
In relation to Arendts human rights concept, the moral limits of markets demonstrate that largely contemporary society has failed to honor fair bargaining situations. According to Sandel (2012), the less privileged in society have often been deprived of their basic human rights by the injustices of the market models. Many inequalities have been reflected in the available market choices. The puzzle about how markets should be is actually on how individuals choose to coexist. A poor person may decide to sell his/her organ to cater to the basic needs, but the pressure of the necessities compels this decision. In this perspective, the markets have provided a platform to exploit morality under unfair conditions. However, market choices are neither transparent, nor are their free decisions because some individuals are unfairly poor, and they do not have the potential to bargain on equal grounds.
Kants perspective
The concept of transparency is important to anyone interested in the ethics of human dignity and the perpetual peace of Immanuel Kant. This study seeks to emphasize that the concept of transparency that Kant advances helps to understand human interactions in addition to what it takes to experience freedom. Transparency addresses an array of issues ranging from the nature and form of human interactions. Transparency entails what people say, why they say it, and what others translate different meanings. Transparency has been used as a term that defines market behavior, human rights, and integrity in business.
Transparent involvements define individuals as rational and as independent beings. The Kantian understanding of the concept of transparency requires all citizens to reckon the inalienable equality, freedom, and justice for fellow citizens within society (Class, 2012). Such rights do not necessarily need to be expressed in the civil constitutions, but on a personal philosophy, which acknowledges other humanity. Such statements demonstrate the link between the Kantian transparency concepts with Arendts human rights phenomenon. Kant argues that a political society must learn how to honor and safeguard human rights. In this perspective, Sandel (2012) suggests that market forces do not protect human rights, and they lack the proper foundation upon which justice is exercised for all regardless of socio-economic and political status.
As noted by Kant that individuals identify themselves with communities in which transparency is advanced coupled with the demonstration of the capacity to grow, Arendt to retaliates this claim. This insight links to Sandels idea that non-market interactions are founded on respect for moral self and acknowledgment of human rights in any just community. The Kantian transparency concept reflects the respect for the independence of others and human rights as the only way upon which contemporary states can experience perpetual peace. Relatedly, the market concept as a universal solution underscores the concept of human rights as defined by the moral self.
Arendts perspective
Arendt was among the leading political thinkers of the past century. In this work, she relates to most political situations of her time in a bid to get their meaning and associate with other works affecting human moral values and political philosophy. By doing so, she develops a new dimension that illuminates the human situation with regard to human rights. Arendt was a liberal thinker, an advocate for basic human rights, and a critic of public philosophy cemented on ethnic, class, illegitimate, and non-transparent ideals. Her perception of politics was focused on the concept of active public participation in the sense that individuals are free to make collective deliberations about all the issues affecting them as a political community. Political activity is reckoned if it reflects the Kantian transparency concept, which enables every individual to meet his/her needs for freedom (Birmingham, 2006). The contemporary markets favor conditions, which compromise transparency in most institutions, coupled with the inflated exercise of fundamental human rights.
Personal reflections
This section seeks to make several objections to Sandels approval of altruism and non-profit driven interactions. It is meaningless to attribute non-market interactions to perpetual peace or an individuals freedom. The practice of altruism in the markets is not the alternative to markets as a universal solution to human problems. Non-market or rather non-profit driven interactions among individuals do not necessarily mean transparency, freedom, or self-sacrifice, but it might translate to be a usual human trait. Choosing altruism over market benefits leads to a time when one exploits all deposits and thus giving without taking marks an inevitable way to privation. Sandel fails to address much of his claims against markets. He argues that transparency and fairness should only thrive if markets are leveled by embracing work or services for zero profits.
With regard to market morals, it is less controversial if an individual is in a position to support his/her familys needs by selling an organ. This aspect demonstrates altruism towards the family rather than giving it for free to favor Sandels model of non-market interactions. Sandel implies that markets have led to moral damage in the pursuit of happiness at the peril of human well-being. In addition, it is easy for one to acknowledge that capitalist markets have the best available conditions for the realization of personal needs and the distribution of resources. Markets liberate creativity and encourage transparency in most sectors of humanity.
This section disagrees with Kants application of transparency and the simplicity that he presumes regarding its adaptability. Nonetheless, his view about Sandels conceptualization of markets supports the argument depicted throughout this paper. Perpetual peace developed by Kant was arguably viewed as the basis of the modern liberal perspective. Perpetual peace was identified as a state of affairs where peace flourished in a particular region. Kant overemphasized this model as resulting in transparency, defined human rights, and better markets that factored in the morals of altruism. Even though Kants phenomenon of perpetual peace partly advanced contemporary democracy, it differed substantially from democratic values that he claimed to illuminate (Class, 2012). He emphasized on republican states as opposed to democratic ones.
He failed to show how this form of government embraces transparency and human rights. In addition, he fails to address some fundamental issues of modern democracy and even acknowledges that republican governments are insufficient to enhance human rights, peace, and hegemony throughout its structures. Kant differs from Sandels conception about markets by arguing that modern commerce and capitalism make stakeholders responsible and war unprofitable even for the victorious side. Therefore, markets make modern states peaceful and reduce the existing controversies about their moral limits.
Arendts concept of the human condition serves a major role in the assessment of community political perception. This article disagrees with Arendts view, as she seems blindfolded by her opinion, which misleads her to various questionable standpoints. First, Arendt overestimates the role of human rights within the political community. Concerning the market concept by Sandel, she insists on the distinction of the private from the public in a bid to ensure that the poor are not exploited by the markets (Birmingham, 2006).
Arendt is wrong to imply that human life is essentially about capitalism or rather search for dominance at the peril of other peoples freedom. On the contrary, humanity entails a fundamental establishment of what stands out as a desired lifestyle. Second, Arendt perceives that political parties as instruments via which the autonomy of the people is derailed and manipulated. She further identifies that this political organization excludes the majority from public life, coupled with generating indifference to public matters. This notion is lacking since democracy grants the masses the opportunity to exercise their rights and act as independent citizens.
Implications
Upon critical examination of the three authors, this articles point of view is substantially influenced in various ways. First, Sandels critique of markets gives the reader new insights to understand how markets have altered the way humans relate with each other. However, as shown earlier, this argument generates a firm position for this article that markets have made contemporary society inherently peaceful, transparent, and free to exercise ones independence.
Second, the Kantian idea of transparency overestimates the way people should express themselves, as sometimes they may feel constrained by the pressure to conform. The position is this article remains unchanged as it holds that transparency is just but a part of the many attributes that impact on markets and fundamental human rights. Lastly, Arendts concept of human rights does little to alter the position of this article. Her calls for free will are excessive and uncontrollable. Assuming that humanity attains all that she describes as fundamental rights, then the state will turn into chaos, and markets become worse since everyone will want to dominate.
Conclusion
As shown throughout this study, the three authors concepts form a stable link, which is fundamental to steer the necessary changes for human coexistence and prosperity. However, the communal theme shared by these concepts is questionable due to its limitation to grow and the insecurity to venture into new realms. For instance, Sandel seems constrained by his non-market interaction models, which are subject to decline due to the lack of benefits to ensure sustainability. Generally, inasmuch as these concepts may seem normative, they are limited in scope, hence unsuitable for the ever-evolving complexities in socio-political life.
References
Birmingham, P. (2006). Hannah Arendt & human rights: The predicament of common responsibility. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Web.
Class, M. (2012). Coleridge and Kantian ideas in England, 1796-1817: Coleridges responses to German philosophy. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Web.
Sandel, M. (2012). What money cant buy: The moral limits of markets. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Web.
The relationship between rational and supernatural, a pointed thought and superstitious belief, has always been ambivalent. On one side, enlightenment thinkers insist on logic and reason to be the foundation for a developed, mature person and society; on the other, supernatural is intertwined deeply with the very nature of humanity. It is through the lens of spiritual belief and superstitious fear that people first perceived the objective reality since the beginnings of history. In a way, supernatural can be considered a form of enlightenment thought: it attempted to explain and categorize various phenomena, fit them into the worldview as rationally as possible, although with primitive tools and ideas. There is indeed a deep connection between supernatural and enlightenment, as the former provided ethical, cultural, social basis for the enhancement of logical thinking the latter used to achieve a new level of realitys understanding.
Body
For Kant, enlightenment is a higher stage in the development of a person, when they are freed from the pressure of external authority on their thought. Through enlightenment thought, people reach the ability to freely and unlimitedly use their minds and dare to know everything that exists with its help (Kant 1). Sapere aude! Dare to understand! becomes the motto of the enlightenment; however, one can apply the same statement to the supernatural explanations. Both the enlightenment and the supernatural belief dare the humanity to try and understand the world around it, use the minds of people to gain knowledge of the unknown. Although their approaches are fundamentally opposite, as enlightenment thought uses formal logic and reason to try and explain a phenomenon, while supernatural calls for a more spiritual explanation, both are crucial for human development.
Reflecting on the world-historical process, Kant understands its content as the realization of natures plan for the human race. By this plan, he implies the full development of all the potential invested by nature in the human race, and, above all, the pinnacle of it the rational human ability. Kant defines the Age of Enlightenment as a turning point, which is one of the brightest stages in the evolution of the mind in the course of human history. To him, the ultimate maturity enlightenment of a person lies in the ability to act and decide on their own, without the outside guidance. Thus, in Kants paradigm, a persons willingness to reassess and rethink the existing doctrines and develop their own understanding of a phenomenon is a sign of enlightenment, and thus, of inner growth.
In this regard, one can consider Ueda Akinari a rather good example of an enlightened thinker, despite the fact that his stories use supernatural as a main set for narrative. Ueda Akinari thought a lot about the essence of fiction, which resulted in the development of his own understanding of it (Akinari and Chambers 38). The analysis of classical novels and stories of the Heian era led him to the question of what a story is, what the reader sees in it, why and how the author creates it. His views come down to the fact that fiction is inherent in literature, which is a tool for embodying the authors concept and which gives the work an aesthetic value. Thus, in Akinaris understanding, a work of art was not an illustration of a predetermined religious or ethical idea, rather, it embodied the authors individual views in the form of a narrative.
Conclusion
Kants understanding of enlightenment reflected not only his philosophical views but also his understanding of contemporary society. To him, the real maturity of a person lies in the ability to find inner strength to stray from a well-known path and think for themselves. From this perspective, Akinaris horror stories reflect the concept of enlightenment in supernatural fiction. Through analyzing folklore and mythology, and applying his own understanding of their meaning, Akinari created stories which, while familiar to a reader in their cultural basis, are entirely unique in their message. This example outlines the deep, intricate connection between the enlightened thought and supernatural.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. What Is Enlightenment? Hackett Publishing, 1784.
Ueda, Akinari, and Anthony H. Chambers. Tales of Moonlight and Rain: A Study and Translation by Anthony H. Chambers. Columbia University Press, 2007.
No one before or after Kant, except Sartre, wrote a philosophical book called Critique. Kant chose this title to criticize all his predecessors. The negative connotation was also in his mind. He wanted to make reason pure and ensure that no experience or sensation would introduce itself into reasons thinking. The word may have been suggested to him. Kant discovered that the faculty of reason leads people astray, not tradition or authority. Critique, therefore, means an attempt to discover the sources and limits of reason. Kant believed that it meant laying down a complete plan to guarantee the completeness and certainty of the structure in all its parts.
Critique stands in a twofold opposition to dogmatic metaphysics on the one hand and skepticism on the other. Humans are prone to use critical thinking and succumb to neither. It is not a preparation for a new business but a new way of thinking. It is not as though the seemingly negative business of critique could be followed by the seemingly positive business of system making. According to Kant, this was another dogmatism. He believed philosophy had become critical in the age of criticism and enlightenment.
It is an old concern of philosophy to think critically and to blaze the trail of thought through prejudices and unexamined opinions and beliefs. Kant was aware of it since he wished to proceed and silence all objectors using Socrates method. His methods consisted in emptying his partners of all unfounded beliefs and fantasies. According to Plato, he did this through the art of kinesin, which involves separating and distinguishing. Socrates believed that no knowledge follows the examination. Kant discovered that the only rule that holds away overthinking is the rule of consistency, which was later called the axiom of non-contradiction.
Critical thinking exposes itself to the test of free and open examination, meaning the more people participate in it, the better. Communicability implies a community of men that can be addressed and listened to. According to Kant, enlightenment means thinking for oneself. Kant also clarified that critical thinking does not involve knowing what is in someone elses mind; it is thinking for oneself. Through critical thinking, one can arrive at a general standpoint. Kant refers to it as the viewpoint from which to look upon, watch, form judgment and reflect on human affairs. Kant clearly states that a general standpoint does not dictate how one should act or apply the wisdom attained from the general standpoint to political affairs. It is merely a perception caused after evaluating variables and coming up with the final agreement or conclusion.
Enlightenment is the ability of a man to step out of immaturity. It mostly happens when an external force does not cause immaturity. Immaturity occurs when an individual is unable to understand a phenomenon without guidance. Immaturity is a circumstance imposed on oneself because it does not lie in the lack of comprehension but the failure to use knowledge without the guidance of another person. Maturity is the courage to use understanding to explain a certain phenomenon. Many people dwell in immaturity long after establishing their ability to come from it due to laziness and cowardice. Others act as their guardians to assist them in coming out of their immaturity.
The capacity of man to pay for any work has led people to dwelling immaturity. It is caused by overreliance since finding someone who can do something for them is very easy. Some physicians determine a persons diet, people read books for understanding, and some pastors serve as guidance and counseling. With all these and others, people can avoid pressuring themselves to work and explore different phenomena. Immanuel Kant explains that taking steps to maturity is dangerous. The guardians domesticated the animals and made them dumb; for instance, they determined the environment of some animals environment so that it would be impossible for them to come out of their comfort zone.
Since an individual is trapped in immaturity, it isnt easy to work themselves out. Others get used to the fact that they cannot use their understanding because no one allows them to use it. They adapt to rules, formulas, and other aids designed to trap them into permanent immaturity. On the contrary, a few have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturitys shackles and cultivating their minds to pursue a secure course. &prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass. Kant means that people in power might sabotage peoples brains to keep them from enlightenment. It is compared to putting people on a leash in order to control them.
Kant proposes that the public should enlighten itself and allow freedom because enlightenment is inevitable. He states that some are stuck in the yoke of immaturity amongst the guardians. They must assist every person calling to walk out of it. He despises the guardians for attempting to put the rest of the public in the yoke of immaturity. He states that when the public is enlightened, it may force the guardians to remain under the yoke of immaturity, for the public would finally take revenge upon them or their descendants. The public can only gradually enlighten itself with the guardians help.
The main characteristic of human reason is questionable. It is unable to provide the answers to the questions asked. Even though human reason is based on logic and evidence rather than emotion, its ability to explain certain phenomena is incomplete. It has come with various principles to explain this experience. The questions cannot cease to exist; it employs principles that human consciousness cannot resist. Kants criticism is that human reason has numerous errors. In the efforts to conceal those errors, the principles are limited and no longer subject to logic or empirical test.
There was a time when metaphysics has crowned the queen of science. Metaphysics explains the first principle of things, concepts, and other abstracts. It was taken over by human understanding and reason since it allows people to explain concepts through the evidence gathered and logic. Human reason planted doubt on the origin of metaphysics which led to the depreciation of the latter. Metaphysics is now considered ancient and was rendered dark, confused, and unserviceable.
However, this conflict between metaphysics and human reason brought about indifference in science. Kant explains that this knowledge, if attainable, should be used to explain a phenomenon that needs attention and reflection. He says that this knowledge of human reason can be used to explain the origin of metaphysics, its extent, and limits reflecting on his principles. Kant clearly states that the problem with metaphysics, as with any other science, is to explains how things happen.
Kant says that he does not avoid the question directed to reason due to the insufficiency of human reason. On the contrary, it answers them with satisfaction. Even though human reason conflicts with itself, Kant answers all questions according to principles without dogmatism or theoretical knowledge. His main aim is to answer the questions in completeness. Therefore, to fully explain the principle, all questions must be answered. If a principal has one question which cannot be answered, they have no choice but to reject the Principal.
For certainty, he rejects the idea of opinions in his investigations; therefore, everything resembling a hypothesis should be treated as counterfeit. The reader has the right to demand logical and aesthetic clearness and other concrete illustrations which should be provided. He opts to develop principles to explain the metaphysics of nature, which would be richer content than the critique of human reason with reliable conditions and sources. Human reason has the peculiar fate of being burdened with questions that it cannot ignore because they are problems that human reason has given it, but also questions that it cannot address because they are beyond the its scope.