Abstract This paper examines the philosophical outlooks of ImmanuelKant and David Hume, with the author concluding that Kant's perspective is preferable. Kant's opinion on how one gains knowledge is contrasted with Hume's. Both perspectives on the contribution of experience to knowledge and the role of the "self" and a personal "world" are also considered.
Outline:
Introduction
Exposition
Conclusion
From the Paper "In his principal book entitled, "The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals," Kant explains why only the categorical imperative is the valid standard of moral obligation (Abbott 2006, Richards 2006, McCormick 2006). He limits his discussion to specific willful actions in moral situations or conditions, where the will is, or should be, influenced only by reason or rational considerations, rather than by subjective or emotional considerations, such as laziness, convenience, or advantage . He writes that morality involves what actions are necessary and that concept comes only from reason or rational considerations. These rational considerations must, in turn, be a "single principle of obligation (Richards)." It must also be stated as a command and has no reference to, or weighed against, the consequences of the action. Kant then says that only the categorical imperative fulfills all these conditions (Richards, Abbott, McCormick)."
Abstract This paper compares the ideas and theories of John Stuart Mill and ImmanuelKant concerning morals. The paper compares their views on moral concerns necessary for ethical decisions and moral perceptions of higher and lower pleasures. The paper also examines and discusses differences between the two philosophers regarding moral judgment and decisions and contends that Kant's moral system is more complete.
From the Paper "Any truly complete ethics must address a number of concerns. These concerns include moral perception, moral choice, moral judgment, moral justification and moral systems. While a number of theorists have addressed these aspects of ethics, the ideas and theories advanced by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill seem to offer the most complete and affirmative approaches to these concerns. For any ethics to exist there must be some type of moral perception present in individuals and in entire societies. John Stuart Mill found that almost all..."
Tags: morals, philosophy, John Stuart Mill, ImmanuelKant
Abstract This essay discusses philosopher ImmanuelKant's approach to the Enlightenment as presented in his work, "What is Enlightenment". The author of the paper addresses the following questions: Why did Kant choose to address the Enlightenment as he did? Is his approach as narrow as it seems to be? What exactly was the Enlightenment? Was it arborescent or rhizomatic? Depending on how it is defined, what approach should be taken to this phenomenon?
From the Paper "The Enlightenment is an enigma in that it represents an abrupt transition from the thought of the preceding period with a subsequent transformation of all social and cultural institutions. Yet, Kant treats the Enlightenment by using an apparently very narrow focus which leads to numerous problems. "
Abstract This paper discusses ImmanuelKant's ideas about space and time, showing how they flowed from Newton and then developed as a mental construct more than a description of any reality. The paper shows that these ideas were bound with Kant's ideas about human consciousness and the relationship between perceptions and reality, human thought and the material world, as part of Kant's theory of knowledge.
From the Paper "Immanuel Kant is best known as a moral philosopher, though his writings address many other issues and include an ontological discussion of questions about space, time, and the relationship of man to God. Such questions are closely bound with Kant's ideas about human consciousness and the relationship between perceptions and reality, human thought and the material world. Moral philosophy is also known as ethics and consists of the study of certain values which help determine human behavior. Different theorists take different approaches to the issue. An interesting and complex approach is offered by Immanuel Kant. Bernard Williams notes that Kant relies on some ideas which are not shared by other modern theorists, "in particular that a commitment to the basic principle of morality (the so-called 'Categorical Imperative') is presupposed by the very activity of a rational agent" (Williams 555)."
Abstract The paper compares and contrasts the theory of subjectivity in ImmanuelKant's "Critique of Judgment" and Wolfgang Iser's "Interaction Between Text and Reader." The paper discusses the cultural context in which each theory surfaced and how Kant's and Iser's concepts and theories can be made operational.
From the Paper "The purpose of this research is to compare and contrast the role of the subject and subjectivity for aesthetic reception and or production in Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Judgment" and in Wolfgang Iser's "Interaction Between Text and Reader." The research will set forth the cultural context in which each theory surfaces and the manner in which each commentator defines relevant terms and then discuss how their concepts and theories can be made operational in selected texts and thereby contribute to understanding and clarification of them."
Abstract This work deals with Kant's understanding of the basis for moral actions taken from his work entitled "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals". He believes that there is one criterion for moral obligation which he refers to as the "categorical imperative". A large part of this essay discusses the four ways in which this "categorical imperative" can be formulated.
From the Paper "In presenting the one criterion for moral obligation, Immanuel Kant first rejects other moral traditions before his time: among them, the virtue theory, which bases morality on good character traits; and the consequential theory, which bases it on the consequences of actions. In response, he argues that moral actions are based only on a "supreme principle of morality" ? one that is objective, rational and freely chosen -- which he called the categorical imperative."
Tags:Kant, Categorical, Imperative, morality, obligation, objective, formula
Abstract This paper compares the philosophical views of some of the greatest philosophers of all times, Plato, Descartes and Kant. The paper explains the Plato/Socratic approach to philosophy that reveals the limitations of philosophy as a rigorous science but maintains the belief that some things are knowable and valuable. The paper claims that in stark contrast to this method is Rene Descartes, who holds that philosophy can be attacked in a manner analogous to mathematics and like mathematics, definite and undeniable solutions can be derived. The paper contends that Kant's ideas are similar to those of Descartes.
From the Paper "Many great thinkers, both modern and ancient, have sought to attain some understanding of the world and the things within it by using the tool of philosophy. Just as they have differed in their views concerning morality and justice, they have also differed in specifically how far philosophy itself can take us. These varying beliefs-namely, philosophers' perspectives on philosophy-tell us a great deal about the most centrally held premises from which all of their arguments spring forth. The Plato/Socratic approach to philosophy reveals the limitations of philosophy as a rigorous science but maintains the belief that some things are knowable and valuable. Standing in stark contrast to this method is Rene Descartes, who holds that philosophy can be attacked in a manner analogous to mathematics; and like mathematics, definite and undeniable solutions can be derived."
Abstract This paper explains that in Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason", he provides a choice of either following the moral law or taking other actions that will result in an immoral action. The paper further explains that the resulting happiness Kant is discussing is then speculative on the grounds that it is not essential for the greater good, since the basis of following the moral law can be extremely painful in relation to doing what is universally right.
From the Paper "The basis of objectivity in the practical reason of Kant can be defined through the notion of universality in the human thought process. In this manner, Kant is aware of the subjectivity of the mind through an interior process, which then marks an objective or universal reality that stands outside or presupposes thought matter that exists outside of the human mind (KPV 5:21). Through this aspect, reasoning must presuppose that freedom is something that can indelibly be an objective premise, since the basis of freedom comes from outside of mankind's mental will. In this manner, the reasoning mind can intuitively perceive that freedom must exist on a universal plane, since it has a rational process involved in defining natural laws. Through a series of causal relationships with what he calls 'the moral law", Kant seeks to define freedom that can be assumed through the..."
Abstract By claiming that space is empirically real and transcendentally ideal, Kant rejects both the Newtonian and Leibnizian metaphysical views, though, to be sure, he also finds a median between them. In the preface to the "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant asks, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" To show that they are, he cites pure mathematics and pure natural science as 'progressive' exemplars. Kant plans to show that these judgments are possible, in part, because of the pure forms of intuition, namely, space and time. In this paper, the writer gives a detailed examination and critique of his main arguments to this effect, principally with reference to H. Allison's excellent commentary, "Kant's Transcendental Idealism."
From the Paper "His position was that such a form must necessarily and logically proceed the actual intuition of an object, and thus, must be given by the mind (logically) prior to any possible experience of an object as distinct from the self. This is the sense in which it is necessary and universal - that is, a priori - as it is an 'epistemic condition' of all human knowledge derived from outer sense. So far I have only asserted Kant's claims, I shall now turn to the arguments he puts forth to establish the apriority and pure intuitive nature of space."
Abstract This paper deals with approaches taken to Kant's categorical imperative. The author examines the Kant's work such as "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals", and various interpretations by critics such as Dietrichson as well as Allison. A look at Kant's approach to methodologies.
From the Paper "When Immanuel Kant wrote his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, it was as the basis for which he would write all his latter works on the study of morality ? namely reason in Kant's estimation (though admittedly this is a simplification). There have been numerous chapters written on Kant's work in the Groundwork, and therefore, there have been numerous approaches to analysis of the Groundwork attempted by authors who have sought to either support or attack Kant's conceptions of human motivations."
Abstract This paper examines Henry Allison's critique of Kant's theory of rational judgement and then highlights and explains the difficulties Allison has with Kant's theory. Specifically, this paper explains Allison's view that, in contrast with Kant, one cannot have a "disinterested liking" toward the object being judged.
From the Paper "The aesthetics of taste and the merits of rational judgement are often posited as binary opposites. Yet rationalism did not lead Kant to exclude taste from his system of philosophy. Instead, taste figures prominently in Kant's analytic, notes scholar Henry Allison in his text on Kant's Theory of Taste. (2) The theory of disinterested taste advanced in Kant's Analytic of the Beautiful is explicitly in dialogue with his German philosophic contemporaries. It attempts to define a pure judgment of taste, which Kant believes must be devoid of all interest. ?Everyone has to admit that if a judgement about beauty is mingled with the least interest than it is very partial and not a pure judgement of taste.?
Abstract The paper explains Berger's view that human beings are meant to have freedom. The paper shows how Kant basically believed the same thing when he stated that human beings are ends in themselves. The paper looks at the two passages that are concerned with the basic beliefs of these two individuals. The paper analyzes these passages in terms of assumptions, language, perspectives and arguments. The paper explains how both Berger and Kant believed that the human being has a high purpose but that the purpose could be easily taken away. The paper highlights how according to Berger, society could destroy it and Kant believed that humans can be used by other people.
From the Paper "Berger is concerned with the individual's position in society and with people's ability to deal with the facades of society. Society can lead in two directions. Kant was not concerned with society, but only with the individual's actions towards other people. In Berger's view, human beings are meant to have freedom, and Kant basically believed the same thing when he stated that human beings are ends in themselves. The two passages are concerned with the basic beliefs of these two individuals. The passages will be analyzed in terms of assumptions, language, perspectives and arguments."
Abstract The paper explores a pressing moral dilemma and how it appears Kant, Bentham and Hare would treat such a matter were they alive. Specifically, the paper looks at euthanasia and at the positions of each philosopher on this morally and intellectually vexing issue. To begin with, a review of Kant's work indicates that would he be alive today, he would be strongly opposed to euthanasia because of the unintended negative consequences it can create and because of his own revulsion towards suicide. Moreover, Bentham would, in the writer's opinion, be less-than-congenial towards euthanasia because of the potential it has to create far more harm than good for society at large (thereby making it a decidedly non-utilitarian practice) and because, like Kant, he feels that suicide is an offensive act worthy of condemnation.
This paper addresses differences between two versions of the famous categorical imperative in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. These formulations deal with the universal/objective and individual/subjective views of moral and ethical action
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 1 source, 2002, $ 62.95
Abstract This paper addresses differences between two versions of the famous categorical imperative in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. These formulations deal with the universal/objective and individual/subjective views of moral and ethical actions. There is some discrepancy between what ethical 'results' each formulation delivers, which is discussed in the paper.
