Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is a central figure in modern philosophy. Kant argues that the human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment, that space and time are forms of human sensibility, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is independent of humanity's concepts of it. More at Wikipedia
Born:Apr 22, 1724, Königsberg, Prussia, (now Kaliningrad, Russia)
Photo Source : Wikipedia
Died:12, 1804, Königsberg, Prussia Residence:Königsberg, Prussia
Source Wikipedia
The topic of interest in this post is from source. KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
I find it extremely interesting that someone can think that morals are rational. I do know that from within myself I use logic and reason to figure out the consequences for things. This doesn't mean that my rational is going to be someone else s rational. The question " Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act?" is a question that most don't ask themselves and truly there are acts for which no consequence can be known. Does this mean that if the consequences cannot be known and therefor there is no information for determining a rational that we can't do the act?
We human beings have to modalities of thinking. One is logic and reason based and the other is arbitrary emotions about everything. Logic is the conditions we find things in and reason is the reasonable consequence one can expect if you change the conditions. What if it has never been done before and you have no clue? The second question is also limiting "Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?" So here one must ask the other human beings. Some people have not a clue what goals they have if any and truthfully contact with someone who does may do them a world of good. Does the condition of not having no goals preclude contact with a moral Kantian?
What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
I am shocked that anyone would make such a claim. People absolutely can deny being commanded by morality or we would never see murder, theft or really any immoral acts. People also opt out of and claim all the time that claims that they are morally bond are not binding on them. One has two wonder what is being actually expressed here? Maybe it is the nature of the words being used that precludes that use of the would should?
How does the categorical imperative work? The categorical imperative has three different formulations. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation. 1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]."
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
I think for me I need to study this just a bit more. The truth is the maxim is in error because it presupposes that a human beings will affects universal laws of nature, which to me is a kind of trying to make man a law unto himself. If however he means that we should attempt to follow those universal laws we can identify I would have too agree. However Perhaps what is meant is that man having control over his own actions should do unto others as he would have others do unto him, I would agree, and note that this idea is ancient and does not originate with Kant. I also wonder what Kant would say if the universal maxim is I will acquire all that I can without regard to others. For one it is a description we know well today. It describes the Elite to a tee.
All photos are Pixabay unless otherwise sourced. I am not responsible for if you think, how you think, or what you think or do. You are. I am just sharing the beginnings of my investigation into the philosophers. Hope you enjoy.