Category: Immanuel Kant

Introduction

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

Two Formulas inside Kants Categorical Imperative

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

What Makes Categorical Imperative Special

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

Application of Kants Moral Philosophy in Life

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

Reference

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). Kants moral philosophy. Author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). Kants philosophy of religion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

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

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

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

Kants target

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

How Kant differentiates his view from his predecessors

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

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

The problems that Kants views overcome

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

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

Work Cited

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

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

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

Kants target

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

How Kant differentiates his view from his predecessors

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

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

The problems that Kants views overcome

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

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

Work Cited

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

Introduction: The Essence of Enlightenment

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

The Difference Between the Enlightened and the Immature Man

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

Obstacles to Consciousness and its Relevance

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

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

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

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

Desire for Immaturity as an Unwillingness for Self-Reliance

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

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

The Modern Enlightenment Era

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

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

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

Freedom of Thoughts and Speech

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

Introduction

Empiricism is the philosophical view that the only source of knowledge is the senses. There are two schools of thought in regards to this idea. The empiricist philosophers, Locke, Bacon, and Hume support this view. The rationalist philosophers, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz dispute this view, proposing that rationality is the source of knowledge. The ideas about empiricism have been developed over time, with David Hume being the last empiricist. This paper seeks to examine his views alongside Immanuel Kants. Immanuel Kant agreed partially with the empiricist view but totally disagreed with some of the propositions. Both David Hume (3) and Immanuel Kant (34) put forward their ideas in books (Norton and Taylor 23).

The proponents of the empiricism view saw the mind as being in a blank state when a person is born. This blank space was capable of being filled with anything. However, only senses and experience enable a person to know the world. Without these, there is possibly no way one can claim to know anything. These philosophers believed that those people who claimed to know things they had not experienced had in fact forgotten that they had experienced those things (Zabeeh, 12).

Empiricism also claims that the knowledge acquired through the senses is expanded through experiments and observation. Thus, some of the philosophers in support of this view claim there is no God and our perceptions of Him come from how we perceive ourselves. We imagine God as a larger version of how we imagine ourselves. This is the reason some people rejected David Humes ideas, branding him as an atheist (Deleuze, 5).

David Humes Views on Empiricism

Hume, like all other empiricists, believed that the only possible source of human knowledge is the five senses. He proposed that illusions are created when several events regularly follow each other. These illusions may be confused for new knowledge, which in fact they are not. The other way people learn according to David Hume is through association with others. He borrowed some of his ideas from his predecessor Locke.

Perceptions and ideas are quite different in Humes view. Perceptions come from direct experiences. He also refers to them as impressions. These are more powerful than ideas which are reflections of perceptions. This is because the senses are involved in creating impressions. It is from this distinction that Hume created the Copy Principle. This is the idea that every idea represents a copy of an impression through the senses. Human beings can imagine things they have never experienced by compounding the knowledge gained from their senses. For example, if one has seen a valley before, and the color blue, then when asked to imagine a blue valley, these two ideas are combined (Hume, 35).

Hume also divided the compounding of knowledge by the mind into two classes. A priori knowledge is analytical and gained through the relation of facts. Synthetic knowledge, which represents matters of fact, is the knowledge gained through sensations. Thus, the rationale between cause and effect did not make sense to Hume. He claimed that there is no way one can identify the effect unless he had experienced them before. There is nothing about the appearance of fire that hints towards its ability to burn, only someone who had been burnt before could know (Wolff, 12).

Hume also proposes that peoples ideas of God are simply limitless compounded thoughts they have about themselves. There is no room for faith or any other source of knowledge in Humes arguments. This puts him in direct contradiction to previous scholars on the subject who merely mean different ideologies are developed (Zabeeh, 3).

Immanuel Kants Views on Empiricism

Kant recognized that the beginning of knowledge is the senses. He agreed with empirical philosophers and disagreed with rationalist philosophers. He claimed that in this world, the phenomenal world, senses are the source of our knowledge because the mind is limited. One can only think within certain confines.

The senses are complemented by the mind in the creation of new knowledge. It begins in the senses but ends in the mind. People know new things by experiencing then thinking about the experience and drawing conclusions from this. Thus he claimed that we have no knowledge of things in them. All we know is from our experiences and thoughts (Kant, 45).

Kant referred to the world in which things are as they are as the real world. He also called it the noumenal world. The things in this world cannot be known by experience as in the phenomenal world. Immanuel Kant claimed that things such as God, morality, and human freedom exist in this world. According to Kant, morality is not just a feeling. It is what links the two worlds together (Hume, Berkely, and Locke, 12).

The nominal world could only be understood by an awareness of the existence of self-given by God. The phenomenal world is also understood because we are aware of our existence. If we were unaware of our own existence, then according to Kant, we would be unable to tell the meaning of what we sense (Kant 12).

Comparison between David Humes and Immanuel Kants Views

The two philosophers agreed that the senses are a source of human knowledge. While Hume believed that this was the only source of human knowledge, Kant believed that the mind was necessary for knowledge creation. Senses in themselves would not suffice. Hume claimed that what others called actions of the mind were merely relations of ideas created through experience (Hume, 34). However, Kant disputed this stating that it was actually possible to gain knowledge by thinking about our experiences.

The division of knowledge into synthetic and analytical employed by Hume was not used by Kant. Rather, he divided the worlds into two, a real and a physical world. Kant did this because he believed that the division of knowledge was not comprehensive enough. It was a subjective division as the knowledge had to be created in some world (Norton and Taylor 45).

David Hume believed that God was a creation of our imagination. He explained that all we claim to know about Him is an illusion created by our perceptions about ourselves. Immanuel Kant on the other hand recognized that God had to exist for morality to exist. To Kant, God, morality, and human freedom could not be known except through the nominal or real-world (Artherton 12).

Kant proposed that when people are born, some things are innate. The person has a sense of existence. This is unlike David Hume who believed that on birth, the human mind is totally empty and is filled when we begin to experience things (Hume, 13).

Conclusion

The views of both are reasonable to some extent. It is true that we learn mostly through experience and experiments. However, learning does not end there. I, therefore, disagree with Humes view on this matter. If it were so, then human beings would be unable to think of hypothetical situations. In effect, Hume lowers humanity to the level of animals by denying the power of reasoning (Deleuze 72).

The matter of synthetic knowledge and analytical knowledge is a true concept. The knowledge we gain through any experience is usually much stronger than abstract ideas (Sassen 7). This is the reason why schools teach science subjects primarily through experiments. However, the question of whether there is a real-world and a physical world is open to debate. This is because Immanuel Kant provides no specific distinction between these two supposed worlds (Artherton 6).

Humes belief that the human mind is blank at birth is untrue. Babies are born knowing how to breastfeed, cry when uncomfortable, and respond to their mothers touch. It is true that they learn many things growing up, but they are not born knowing anything. Hume was mistaken on the subject of Gods existence (Waxman

4). Kant was closer to the truth. The world is not finite as portrayed by Hume. Science has proven that there are other galaxies that man is yet to visit. Ideas about virtues can only come from a good God. The fact that He is invisible does not mean He does not exist. The many wonders of nature attest to Gods existence (Zabeeh 3).

Works Cited

Artherton, Margaret. The Empiricists: Critical Essays On Locke, Berkeley, And Hume (Critical Essays On The Classics). New York: Wiley, 2009.

Deleuze, Giles. Empiricism And Subjectivity. London: Columbia University Press, 2001.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago: Digireads, 2006.

Hume, David, George Berkely and John Locke. The Empiricists. Toronto: Anchor, 1960.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique Of Practical Reason. Toronto: Create Space, 2010.

Norton, David Fate and Jacqueline Taylor. The Cambridge Companion To Hume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Sassen, Brigitte. Kants Early Critics: The Empiricist Critique Of The Theoretical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Waxman, Wayne. Kant And The Empiricists: Understanding Understanding. Chicago: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Wolff, Robert Paul. About Philosophy. Chicago: Prentice Hall, 2008.

Zabeeh, F. Hume. Precursor Of Modern Empiricism : An Analysis Of His Opinions On Meaning Metaphysics Logic Mathematics. Chicago: Prentice Hall, 2010.

Introduction

People determine the moral value of acts differently since environment and experience play a role in shaping ones opinion of morality. The criterion for the acceptability of deeds is different for everyone, so it is difficult to choose a single view of morality and the morality of an act. According to Kant, moral value in deeds arises when they are the consequence of duty, not the inclination. Kants moral laws are based on the properties of deeds in the fulfillment of which an action is obligatory.

Discussion

A perception of Kants assertion should begin with how he proposes to measure the morality of actions. The moral value of actions arises if the agent has good intentions and expects a positive outcome. However, the outcome may be harmful, which does not deprive the act of morality. Here Kant points out that goodwill and intention arise from a sense of the necessity of doing an act because it is right and fits into the universal laws. The value of the act is expressed in pure reason, which performs the act not out of selfishness, desires, or goals (Vaughn 321). The existence of universal law is determinative and moral actions are those that obey it.

This universal moral law is an essential condition for the moral value of deeds. Doing is a duty interpreted by the laws of nature; it cannot be violated even if the agent does not believe in its justice or morality. According to Kant, to do what is proper means to find the strength to carry out the act correctly, despite ones attitude toward it (Vaughn 340). Respect, in this case, is necessary because it recognizes the value of morality and morality itself. In this case, sacrificing ones principles and desires can endow the act with moral value; consequently, it becomes a duty rather than a disposition.

Moral reasoning and conformity to the worlds law allow us to interpret acts as morally conditioned acts that are out of duty. Duty, in this case, is not only a duty but also an understanding of the need to do what is right (Vaughn 341). Whatever the act, its moral value will be formed if the agent recognizes this necessity and acts according to the worlds law (Vaughn 318). Kant suggests that doing what is right is a moral duty that is not always given quickly. This property brings one back to questions about reason being the primary element for evaluating action and creation. Duty is a responsibility to oneself and ones morals with ethical principles.

Confirmation of Kants theory can be found in how human communication occurs. Regarding moral duty, speaking the truth and being honest in any dialogue is everyones responsibility. According to Kant, this is how trust is built between people and the universal laws of ethics are respected. A person is doing right and by duty if he chooses to tell the truth despite the potential negative consequences for himself or someone else. For example, in a court of law, it is impossible not to tell the truth because the principles of justice condition the law. However, some plaintiffs and defendants may lie, thereby violating moral duty and world law and overstepping the boundaries of what is right. According to Kant, such behavior has no moral value a priori, whereas persons who tell the truth, even to their detriment, are doing the right thing.

Conclusion

Thus, according to Kant, the moral value of an act arises if the act is a consequence of official obligation and understanding of what is right. Value arises if the intention fits into universal law. The moral law is the primary condition for forming good will and duty, which obliges a person to do what is right. According to Kant, duty is the understanding and commitment to do moral actions without regard to consequences or ones desires.

Works Cited

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 6^th ed. W. W. Norton & Company, 2022.

Introduction

Kants Constructivism refers to the meta-ethical perspective that explains that there are objective criteria for rational norms. In this case, Kants idea was meta-ethical and based on normative truths. Normative truths are independent and objective of our actual judgments while they are still authoritative and binding for people. Kant has become an inspiration for most people in contemporary society, mainly because of his moral constructivism. There is a broad debate on whether Kant is a moral realist or constructivist, making the case more complicated in determining his role. Rationalists and empiricists have opposing theories of acquiring knowledge and cannot coexist because of their ideological differences. Although Kants Constructivism provides a meta-ethical perspective regarding the validity of norms, it is the most substantial and most plausible theory of knowledge among the realists.

Kants Constructivism and Explaining Why it is the Strongest

Rationalists and empiricists have opposing perspectives regarding acquiring knowledge and cannot coexist. In this case, each theory has strengths that make it unique but does not show a strong argument that warrants reliable conclusions. Kant provides a significant perspective on the world people experience as an empirical realist (Schroeder 229). Kants Constructivism provides a robust defense of the study of the natural world and science, providing the best basis for metaphysics.

Kants argument is the strongest because it helps answer questions regarding the possibility of knowledge and how it is obtained. Kant played a leading role in merging the two philosophies, and he also availed a convincing argument based on empirical relativism that was later renamed constructivism (Lawhead 2). Kants theory is the most plausible because it helps bridge the gap between empiricism and rationalism. In addition, Kants argument is critical because he proves that rationalists and empiricists are all part of the differences between rationalism and empiricism.

Kants epistemology is clear and straightforward, and a person must review and understand both rationalism and empiricism. Kantian philosophy also introduces the principle of induction, which assumes that the future will be like the past. For example, Kant argues that for any cause, there is a reaction. If one finds smoke in any particular area, then the conclusion would be that there is a fire that led to that smoking phenomenon. However, one problem with pure empiricism is based on the reasoning concept (Schroeder 241). If causality is true, reasoning must be present to enable people to match actions with reactions. Kants principle of induction also underscores that an experience will have similarities to a previous episode under the same circumstances. Such reasoning also assumes that previous experiences, such as dropping a glass of water, would lead to the same effect when dropping another item, such as a flower vase.

Kantian concepts in constructivism also assumes that there is relationship between reason and the mind concept, but have no linkages with the ideas of the outside world. According to Kantian philosophy and ethics, there are various reasoning such as matters of facts and relations of ideas which are essential in the contemporary society, but does not talk anything about the world (Lawhead 6). Kant happens to the person most credited with the development of the theory of knowledge in the contemporary society. There are few modern philosophers who would have much zeal in explaining the critical system that Kant talked about. Such skeptics such as Hume would not even match what Kant offered in the philosophic discipline. Kants school of thought played a leading role and remains a relevant part in philosophy.

Explaining Why the Theory is More Plausible than Lockes Empiricism

Kants Constructivist theory is more plausible than Lockes empiricism because of its many faces. This theory equates to a secular religion, making it more practical than Lockes theory. Kants school of thought has also been equated to a theoretical science that help explains other works of philosophers, such as empiricism. The theory acts like a powerful folk tale on human beings existence and origin (Schroeder 228).

Therefore, it fits into many disciplines, such as history, archaeology, and anthropology. Therefore, it differs from many other theories, which are very narrow in their viewpoints as they see issues from one angle, as with empiricism. Kants narrative or school of thought has a symbolic force that helps the people who study it become more enlightened as opposed to Lockes. Constructivism is the best theory as it offers full explanations regarding the origins of human knowledge.

Constructivism is more essential in contemporary society than Lockes empiricism because of its relevance in all living religions and sects that are rivals in their respective interpretations of issues. Although many theories are biased towards various religious affiliations, Kants theory united the different forms of beliefs from rivals. This makes it a dependable theory as it eliminates issues of mistrust synonymous with other schools of thought, such as empiricism (Lawhead 1).

Most upcoming philosophers can trust Kants theory as the provider of truth that enables them to come up with valid conclusions. The distrust of nonbelievers towards specific theories makes Constructivism a school of thought that is trustworthy and reliable in providing information or knowledge. Kants theory offers exciting ideological ideas, making it a scholarly school of thought compared to others, such as empiricism.

Constructivism provides the most robust form of educational literature as opposed to Lockes theory. In this case, the theory has attracted growing interest from those interested in having more information about the topic. Kants philosophy is something that many people identify with and look into ways to deepen their knowledge concerning the subject, unlike Lockes philosophical thoughts. In addition, there lacks enough educational material on constructivist philosophy, making Kants work very popular among people interested in the subject (Schroeder 225). Kants philosophical thoughts are the most reliable in the field because of the ways he explains his ideas. Lockes empiricism that it evaluates people individually and would therefore not have accurate results for an empirical study. On the contrary, constructivism offers a collective responsibility by assessing people collectively and tabulating their results as a group hence beneficial.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Kantian philosophy has become one of contemporary societys most relevant forms of school of thought. Therefore, Kants theory is much more accurate and reliable in providing philosophical information or knowledge that affects society. Kants Constructivist theory provides a meta-ethical viewpoint that explains the criteria of the rational forms in society. In addition, Kants theory is about normative truths that provide basic ideas on what affects peoples societal judgments. Kants theory is more plausible or dependable than others, such as Lockes empiricism, because it is accurate and provides the truth. Therefore, Kants Constructivism provides the most accurate and reliable form of educational literature because of its truth.

Works Cited

Lawhead, William F. The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach. McGraw Hill, 2022.

Schroeder, Mark. The Kantian Account of Knowledge. Reasons First, 2021, pp. 224243. Web.

Introduction

Kants moral principle is among the most recognizable examples of deontological ethics. However, its requirement for compliance with certain virtues was criticized by some philosophers. The following paper explores the possibility of viewing Kants moral principle as an expression of Nietzsches slave morality.

Kants Moral Principle

In order to arrive at a conclusion on the relation between Kants moral principle and Nietzsches slave morality, it is first necessary to ensure sufficient understanding of both concepts. The moral principle is a key element of a deontological ethical theory proposed by Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, there exists a foundation of morals that is intrinsically good by nature (Denis 23). In simple terms, it is possible to determine whether an action is good by tracing its origins to the initial assumptions behind it. Once it becomes apparent that the action is consistent with the moral law, it can be considered benevolent. Importantly, the moral law used as a reference is a categorical imperative, which means that it is equally applicable to all human beings regardless of the context.

As can be seen, the uniformity of the concept of good is consistent with the view of moral absolutism, which presumes that there is an intrinsic affiliation of all existing actions with the concepts of right or wrong (Denis 148). This consistency adds to the universalizability of Kants moral principle, requiring equal applicability of any action or concept to all people. In other words, from Kants ethical standpoint, an action can be considered appropriate when it can be applied to anybody without creating a contradiction. In this way, contradictory actions can be dismissed as plausibly moral based on the idea put forward by Aristotle that just actions cannot create contradictions.

The second key aspect of Kants moral principle is the assumption that all humans are to be perceived as ends rather than means for achieving ends (Denis 159). In the most basic terms, this means that the well-being of all humans should be considered a priority at all times. In a hypothetical scenario where all members of a given group are capable of rational thinking and moral deliberation, each individual can be entrusted with the task of creating laws since they are expected to obey them (Kant 62). It is important to understand that in order to be considered rational, individuals need to comply with moral principles willingly. This aspect ensures autonomy and sustainability of will-based morality.

As can be seen, Kants moral principle falls within the category of moral absolutism. Thus, it can be described as having two primary properties. First, it postulates that the notions of good and bad exist independently from specific scenarios and perceptions, which distinguishes it from moral relativism. Second, it presumes the existence of principles that are intrinsically correct and, therefore, must be upheld. The latter is partially consistent (but not fully compatible) with the idea of moral universalism.

Slave Morality

Next, it is necessary to explain Nietzsches slave morality. Nietzsche takes a historical approach by assuming that the notions of good and bad are invariably tied to cultural and social constructs prevalent in a given society in a specific period. By exploring the etymology of terms behind these concepts, he established that good could be tied to nobility and sophistication, whereas bad is more aligned with simplicity. Based on these origins, he concludes that morality is formed in accordance with historical concepts and suggested the existence of two distinctive moral approaches (Nietzsche 15). The first approach, termed master morality, emphasizes power, nobility, and pride as its core values and utilizes usefulness to determine whether an action is good or bad.

The second approach, termed slave morality by Nietzsche, capitalizes on kindness, humanity, and empathy. In a departure from master morality, this approach rejects the traits and concepts associated with a strong will (presumably due to the inability to harness them). At the same time, certain characteristics, such as autonomy, decision-making capacity, and will, are vilified as undesirable for slaves.

Instead, characteristics that promote humility and compliance are considered desirable and receive moral justification. From this standpoint, Nietzsches slave morality resembles a system of Christian virtues and vices that also emphasize humility, kindness, and empathy and discourages hostility and oppression (Nietzsche 19). However, according to Nietzsches perspective, this approach prioritizes subversion at the expense of development. In other words, instead of aiming at surpassing the master level, a proponent of slave morality would instead try to bring them down to a slave level by devaluating the virtues in their possession.

Importantly, according to slave morality, a utility for the majority is the main determinant of moral justification behind the action. However, the scale used to determine the resulting value uses the concepts of good and evil that resemble those used in deontological ethics and Christian virtues. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that slave morality is founded on deontological principles of absolute values.

The connection between Moral Principles

As can be seen from the information above, the described moral frameworks have a number of common elements. Most prominently, both systems rely on the concepts of good and evil. In addition, the criteria suggested to characterize actions as good or bad are sufficiently similar to arrive at the same conclusion on the action through any perspective. In other words, an action will likely be considered equally just by the proponents of both views.

Another notable similarity is the readiness to comply with the externally imposed standards. In this regard, Kants categorical imperative can be compared to the rule imposed by a master, with one important distinction: the immutable nature of the rule applies only to slaves. In other words, masters are entitled to create values from the position of strength and usefulness. Slaves are then free to reject these values and create an alternative based on principles of humility. However, this approach is also not entirely consistent with Kants view.

As was explained above, according to Nietzsche, the notions of good and bad are established in accordance with the cultural and social environment. Consequently, slave morality (as well as its counterpart) is founded on human-created concepts. Such an approach is more consistent with moral relativism, according to which the benevolence of the action is determined by specific conditions in which it was performed.

Admittedly, Nietzsche also pointed to the fact that slaves are unaware of this aspect and perceive their values as determined by the inherent injustice of slavery (Nietzsche 38). Thus, from their viewpoint, they do use deontological ethics as a core of their values. In other words, it is possible to state that a proponent of slave morality can view Kants moral principle as fully compatible with their framework.

Conclusion

As can be seen, Kants moral principle can be viewed as an expression of Nietzsches slave morality. Both moral systems incorporate a number of highly similar concepts, values, and underlying virtues. Nevertheless, the fact that slave morality is determined by social and cultural environment does not allow considering it deontological in the pure sense. Therefore, the said connection is only possible from the viewpoint that ignores the masters morality aspect and focuses on the preferred framework.

Works Cited

Denis, Lara, editor. Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Kant, Immanuel. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?. Penguin Books, 2013.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morality. Hackett Publishing, 1998.

Centering the importance of utility as the foundation for decision-making, Kants ethical theory is an important framework for addressing complex moral dilemmas. In turn, the Categorical Imperative as a crucial part of the specified perspective allows dissecting major ethical problems and solving them by examining the utility of the proposed solution accordingly. In the situation under analysis, to evaluate the choice between making an effort to save the friend and risking my own life versus doing nothing and risking the life of my friend, the second and the third formulations of Kants Categorical Imperative should be adopted in order to define the validity of each action.

Using the second formulation of Kants theory to approach the case at hand, one will need to internalize the idea of treating others exactly how one envisions the notion of humanity. In the scenario under analysis, increasing the friends chances to escape the danger would equate to promoting humanity. Therefore, the specified solution would imply rushing into the ocean and assisting the friend so that he could escape the attack of a shark. However, given the reality of the extent of my shark fighting skills and the probability of me doing anything that would prevent the shark from attacking my friend after it attacks me, the specified solution would contradict Kants idea of maximizing utility. Furthermore, if being in my friends place in the described scenario, I would prefer the assistance of someone capable of warding off the attack of a shark as opposed to sacrificing themselves so that I could have some time to escape.

In turn, the third formulation of Kants Categorical Imperative is also applicable to the case under analysis. Specifically, the specified formulation postulates that everyone must act in the way that should lead to the best outcome possible. Specifically, Kant posits that one must act as though one were a legislating member in the universal realm of ends. Applied to the situation at hand, the specified maxim implies that the positive outcomes of the possible actions must be amplified. Namely, the presumable ends of the actions to be undertaken trump the rest of the considerations. Similarly to the previous line of thinking, me rushing into the ocean is unlikely to yield a positive outcome for my friend since, even if the shark turns to attack me first, the time that my friend will have will not be enough to save himself and rush to the shore. Therefore, in order to seek the best outcome, it will be more reasonable to search for outside help of a more experienced person who could provide my friend with a greater amount of time for getting out of the ocean.

BY applying the second and the third formulations of Kants Categorical Imperative to the case under analysis, one will be able to elicit the inherent value of each solution and, therefore, choose the option that will help to maximize the utility of the outcome, namely, affect both my friend and me positively. From the specified perspective, the choice of doing nothing appears to be the most sensible choice to make since, without proper skills and the presence of the tools with which to protect myself, I will be putting both my friend and me in danger, while my prospects of saving him will still be questionable, which will not add to my friends opportunity to be saved. Therefore, remaining on the shore and, possibly attracting the attention of those who can provide more effective help would be the most reasonable and sound solution.