We "Kant" Help Taking Care of Ourselves
Ethical theories are a dime a dozen, but many of these theories flow right back to the originality and uniqueness of one of the greatest, most influential European thinkers of the late eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant. Kant's theories have become extremely popular, and important, in the studies of ethical philosophy. Exploring his theories and meanings of self happiness bring a new aspect of thinking and reality to many people. Yet, it also brings forth a lot of questions as to what is happiness and by standards is real happiness based.
Kant believed that the rules of how a person is to behave is not based on religion, but based instead on a person's practical knowledge. He believed a person's moral requirements are the basis of a standard of rationality that he calls the "Categorical Imperative." Kant based his theories off of the arguments of previous theories that a person's beliefs and ideas of God, religion, freedom and immorality come to the forefront of the human mind and as a result, combine with the realistic knowledge that each person currently possesses. Every person is trying to attain a higher good, a place where their happiness and moral integrity coincide. Kant may have used this theory as a basis, but he also argued against this theory. He argued that it is impossible to attain this level of existence and any moral law that may suggest that we should attempt to attain it must be false. Kant also believed that the moral requirements of any person are based upon a standard of rationality, or reasoning, that he named the "Categorical Imperative." In Kant's theory, the "Categorical Imperative" is a subjective, non-invasive, agreement to moral requirements and based on the independence and freedom of personal will and law that constricts it.
Kant also defined a line between autonomy and heteronomy. Before it can be explained, it must be explained. As described by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions" ("Autonomy," 2006). Heteronomy can be described as being the subject of other laws or rules, or a combination of laws and rules, imposed by other people or institutions. When Kant draws his line between autonomy and heteronomy, he describes a principle for autonomy that puts a person's self-respect and self-worth on display through focusing on the source of moral laws and rules that constrict by the authorities that creates them. Kant believed this to be the key to understanding and explaining the authoritarian requirements of morality that people are blanketed by. Since Kant's theory of autonomy is about freedom, he believed that there can be no boundaries in its search, unless the boundaries are ones that are formed by a person's own choosing. He believes that a person that allows themselves to be ruled, or governed, by another, whether a lawmaker, God, or a tyrant, is being led through his or her own overwhelming emotions and cannot act independently of general rules. Therefore, Kant feels that person is not truly honest with himself because his basic rules are imaginary, or pre-set by another, and he cannot act out of respect for his own independence.
The "Categorical Imperative" first formed by Kant states that a person is to "act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Singer.1993. p.177), this is also generally known as Kant's Moral Law. Kant considers the maxim to be the reason behind the actions of each person. Therefore, in theory, the "Categorical Imperative" is very similar to what most people know as the "Golden Rule," but not quite the same. The "Categorical Imperative" is Kant's theory that tells a person that they are "commanded" to exercise their own will, their way and not to conform to the ways or actions of another. He also believed that a person's principles can be combined into one complete attitude from which all responsibilities, and commitments, result. Each person is capable and conscientious of their own rational wills, and possess the ability to adopt and adapt a goal for themselves without the influence of others, whether authoritarian or opinionated. The most important part of Kant's "Categorical Imperative" is the word imperative; making it absolutely necessary and demanding of obedience and respect of doing for themselves rather than for others. So, one can wonder everyone could be willed to act upon their own maxim, or reasonable actions, universally. If not, Kant's "Categorical Imperative" theory is telling people that the action is wrong. People can not be willed, as in wishing them to do something, people can be convinced rationally to do something.
When a person conforms to the "Categorical Imperative" they conform to the idea for an autonomous, or independent, ethical choices. This would only be possible when the idea of freedom can make a person a logical part of the world. Actions would be independent and automatic according to the free will choices of that person, without the fear of authoritarian repercussion for not conforming to the will of another. Kant believed that the automatic conformity to the will for self-interest or self-servitude should be forefront in all people and a conscious thought at all times. Common sense should be prevalent in a world where there are those that believe in moral domination of others. In other words, it logical to believe that all people can be considered to be sensible and reasonable because we should have the ability to let sensible and reasonable thought govern our actions. The morality of a person's decisions should be based on the person being a member of the intelligible world, capable of having rational thoughts and the ability of necessity commands the ethical decisions that are made.
Kant's theories have a sensible avenue of thought that could be considered by many. The "Categorical Imperative" Theory is one such that deals with a sound recommendation for people to consider. With an absolute and detailed necessity of making sure that a person exercises their own will and not conform to the ways of others. Kantian morality has a common attitude in the "Categorical Imperative" that can be found in modern times. Even in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that governing rules did not encompass a person's need for self-interest or self-worth. The theory of the "Categorical Imperative" has strong character and represents a condition that can be considered to be valid at any particular time and can be considered a strong base on which a person can build rational and moral thought in modern times.
Singer reflects soundly on the legacy of Kant in modern times through the thoughts,
"Kant's ethics remains the paradigmatic and most influential attempt to vindicate universal moral principles without reference to preferences or to a theological framework. The hope of identifying universal principles, which is so apparent in discussions of justice and in the human rights movement, is constantly challenged by communitarian and historicist insistence that we cannot appeal beyond the discourse and traditions of particular societies, and by utilitarian insistence that principles derive from preferences. For those who find neither of these routes compelling, the neo-Kantian slogan "Back to Kant" remains a challenge which they must explore of refute." (Singer, p.184. 1993)
Kant presented some really sound theories that could be considered advanced thought for the eighteenth century and these theories can still be used to build solid foundations on in modern times. The "Categorical Imperative" is a sound theory that many can to heed to and still understand. The thought that someone is able to control another in the manner that Kant is suggesting is hard to believe, yet is still so true. Kant's theory has a normal principle, be your own person and not act as others tell you to; it is quite clear in the division between the duties for ourselves and the duties towards others. It is important to remember: people are rational beings because people have the ability to let logic dominate our actions; not because we always act logically. Kant's theories and principles have obviously been viewed much within modern times with many discussions and debates over his theories, references to his principles in Ethics and Philosophy classes and; reflections of his moral principles in the judicial system. Kant, himself may be long gone, but his forward way of thinking will continue forever.
Kant believed that the rules of how a person is to behave is not based on religion, but based instead on a person's practical knowledge. He believed a person's moral requirements are the basis of a standard of rationality that he calls the "Categorical Imperative." Kant based his theories off of the arguments of previous theories that a person's beliefs and ideas of God, religion, freedom and immorality come to the forefront of the human mind and as a result, combine with the realistic knowledge that each person currently possesses. Every person is trying to attain a higher good, a place where their happiness and moral integrity coincide. Kant may have used this theory as a basis, but he also argued against this theory. He argued that it is impossible to attain this level of existence and any moral law that may suggest that we should attempt to attain it must be false. Kant also believed that the moral requirements of any person are based upon a standard of rationality, or reasoning, that he named the "Categorical Imperative." In Kant's theory, the "Categorical Imperative" is a subjective, non-invasive, agreement to moral requirements and based on the independence and freedom of personal will and law that constricts it.
Kant also defined a line between autonomy and heteronomy. Before it can be explained, it must be explained. As described by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions" ("Autonomy," 2006). Heteronomy can be described as being the subject of other laws or rules, or a combination of laws and rules, imposed by other people or institutions. When Kant draws his line between autonomy and heteronomy, he describes a principle for autonomy that puts a person's self-respect and self-worth on display through focusing on the source of moral laws and rules that constrict by the authorities that creates them. Kant believed this to be the key to understanding and explaining the authoritarian requirements of morality that people are blanketed by. Since Kant's theory of autonomy is about freedom, he believed that there can be no boundaries in its search, unless the boundaries are ones that are formed by a person's own choosing. He believes that a person that allows themselves to be ruled, or governed, by another, whether a lawmaker, God, or a tyrant, is being led through his or her own overwhelming emotions and cannot act independently of general rules. Therefore, Kant feels that person is not truly honest with himself because his basic rules are imaginary, or pre-set by another, and he cannot act out of respect for his own independence.
The "Categorical Imperative" first formed by Kant states that a person is to "act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Singer.1993. p.177), this is also generally known as Kant's Moral Law. Kant considers the maxim to be the reason behind the actions of each person. Therefore, in theory, the "Categorical Imperative" is very similar to what most people know as the "Golden Rule," but not quite the same. The "Categorical Imperative" is Kant's theory that tells a person that they are "commanded" to exercise their own will, their way and not to conform to the ways or actions of another. He also believed that a person's principles can be combined into one complete attitude from which all responsibilities, and commitments, result. Each person is capable and conscientious of their own rational wills, and possess the ability to adopt and adapt a goal for themselves without the influence of others, whether authoritarian or opinionated. The most important part of Kant's "Categorical Imperative" is the word imperative; making it absolutely necessary and demanding of obedience and respect of doing for themselves rather than for others. So, one can wonder everyone could be willed to act upon their own maxim, or reasonable actions, universally. If not, Kant's "Categorical Imperative" theory is telling people that the action is wrong. People can not be willed, as in wishing them to do something, people can be convinced rationally to do something.
When a person conforms to the "Categorical Imperative" they conform to the idea for an autonomous, or independent, ethical choices. This would only be possible when the idea of freedom can make a person a logical part of the world. Actions would be independent and automatic according to the free will choices of that person, without the fear of authoritarian repercussion for not conforming to the will of another. Kant believed that the automatic conformity to the will for self-interest or self-servitude should be forefront in all people and a conscious thought at all times. Common sense should be prevalent in a world where there are those that believe in moral domination of others. In other words, it logical to believe that all people can be considered to be sensible and reasonable because we should have the ability to let sensible and reasonable thought govern our actions. The morality of a person's decisions should be based on the person being a member of the intelligible world, capable of having rational thoughts and the ability of necessity commands the ethical decisions that are made.
Kant's theories have a sensible avenue of thought that could be considered by many. The "Categorical Imperative" Theory is one such that deals with a sound recommendation for people to consider. With an absolute and detailed necessity of making sure that a person exercises their own will and not conform to the ways of others. Kantian morality has a common attitude in the "Categorical Imperative" that can be found in modern times. Even in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that governing rules did not encompass a person's need for self-interest or self-worth. The theory of the "Categorical Imperative" has strong character and represents a condition that can be considered to be valid at any particular time and can be considered a strong base on which a person can build rational and moral thought in modern times.
Singer reflects soundly on the legacy of Kant in modern times through the thoughts,
"Kant's ethics remains the paradigmatic and most influential attempt to vindicate universal moral principles without reference to preferences or to a theological framework. The hope of identifying universal principles, which is so apparent in discussions of justice and in the human rights movement, is constantly challenged by communitarian and historicist insistence that we cannot appeal beyond the discourse and traditions of particular societies, and by utilitarian insistence that principles derive from preferences. For those who find neither of these routes compelling, the neo-Kantian slogan "Back to Kant" remains a challenge which they must explore of refute." (Singer, p.184. 1993)
Kant presented some really sound theories that could be considered advanced thought for the eighteenth century and these theories can still be used to build solid foundations on in modern times. The "Categorical Imperative" is a sound theory that many can to heed to and still understand. The thought that someone is able to control another in the manner that Kant is suggesting is hard to believe, yet is still so true. Kant's theory has a normal principle, be your own person and not act as others tell you to; it is quite clear in the division between the duties for ourselves and the duties towards others. It is important to remember: people are rational beings because people have the ability to let logic dominate our actions; not because we always act logically. Kant's theories and principles have obviously been viewed much within modern times with many discussions and debates over his theories, references to his principles in Ethics and Philosophy classes and; reflections of his moral principles in the judicial system. Kant, himself may be long gone, but his forward way of thinking will continue forever.
REFERENCES:
Autonomy. (2006, September 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomy&oldid=76103003
Categorical imperative. (2006, September 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categorical_imperative&oldid=75534273
Kant's Ethical Theory. Retrieved August 24, 2006 from http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/kant.html
Kant's Ethics. Retrieved August 25, 2006 from http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html
Kant's Moral Philosophy. First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Feb 26, 2004. Retrieved August 24, 2006 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
PHI 212: CONTEMPORARY MORAL ISSUES, LECTURE NOTES, LECTURE II, PART 2: IMMANUEL KANT. Retrieved August 24, 2006 from http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/212_2b.html
Singer, P. (Ed.). (1993). Blackwell companions to philosophy: A companion to ethics (pp. 175-185). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Published by katchy
My family is most important to me, my husband, my girls, my dogs. Full time mom, full time wife, full time educators assistant and full time student - who has time for anything else! View profile
Immanuel Kant: A Philosopher's Perspective on Terry SchiavoThe perspectives of German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant applied to the Terry Schiavo case in post-modern terms.- Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics (the Categorical Imperative) Which Theo...Euthanasia means "good death" but today the term is deemed as a merciful action to rid someone of suffering. In many cases we have seen terminally ill patients euthanized.
- The Ethical Theory of KantianismIn this essay, I identify the main principles of Kantianism and point out its strenths and weaknesses.
The Nature of Reality and Appearance by Kant, Hegel and FichteA discussion of concepts and objects and the nature of being. Can we obtain a knowledge about truth in the world by reason alone?- Understanding Kant and Hegel's Views on NatureBoth philosophers Hegel and Kant, through their definition of art and beauty, have conflicting views on nature as an art form and it's capability to ignite an aesthetic experience.
- Kant and the Categorical Imperative: Perfect Vs Imperfect Duties
- Emmanuel Kant and 3 Formulations
- The Differences Between Kant and Aristotle
- Reviewing Kant's Theory of Ethical Duty
- A Critique of Kant and the Modern Philosophers
- Immanuel Kant: Understanding Him
- A Child's Moral Obligation Towards Their Parents