This essay explores the regulative meaning of religious concepts in a Kantian philosophy of religion. A key principle in Kant’s philosophy of religion seems to be the removal of religious claims from the discussion of theoretical cognition…
Download file to see previous pages...
This research will begin with the statement that Immanuel Kant was an immensely popular and influential philosopher in 18th century Germany, who produced a wide array of works on metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and, most relevantly, religion. Probably the most amazing aspect of Kantian philosophy is the completeness of his theoretical and practical philosophies—a distinction he himself used wonderfully in creating his set of works. The difference between pure and practical reason forms the need for his two most seminal works, Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason, the latter of which is more relevant to his consideration of religion. In that work and others, he fleshes out the difference between a constitutive picture of religious concepts and a regulative picture of religious concepts. Accepting the latter as a legitimate answer to one troubling antimony, Kant derives a critical philosophy which evaluates the notion of “religious knowledge”. Sceptical of such a possibility, Kant endeavors to move religion into the realm of the non-cognitive such that claims to know what is beyond experience—the phenomenon—are immediately cast aside. The regulative approach to religious concepts Kant adopts the view that human beings should use the belief in God merely as a system of reward and punishment in morality. God, despite existing outside the realm of natural cause-and-effect, has the power to reward goodness and punish evil, thereby making human beings committed to being moral.
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is believed to be the first contribution of Immanuel Kant to moral philosophy. It analyses the motivation for human for his actions. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the concepts of categorical imperatives which are introduced in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
This is further evidenced by the academic discourse pertaining to human rights and the concept of “human rights” has been the subject of polarised philosophical debate as regards the rights of the individual versus legal protections conferred by the state, particularly in western liberal democracies (Donnelly, 2003, p.7).
In the book “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, specifically on the preface, it can be seen that Kant’s logic can be drawn from the paradigms of reason and subjectivity, which can be of clash with each other; a possible hindrance to achieving a universal philosophy accordingly.
Immanuel Kant, born in 1724, said that moral necessities were a function of rationality. He emphasized on the fact that immorality takes into account the breach of Categorical Imperative (CI) and is therefore not rational. Many other philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke also said that moral requirements were a result of the rationality standards.
Modern philosophy is philosophy done during the "modern" era of Europe and North America. The modern period runs roughly from the beginning of the seventeenth century until the present. There are two major figures of philosophy during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries namely: Rationalist and Empiricist.
However, Rawls in concept of distributive justice goes further in hypothesizing the justice theory under the justice as fairness. The justice as fairness has two principle to drive the following Rawlsian principles of justice the first one is that the liberty principle and the second is the difference principle.
This paper will focus on the strategies used for justifying moral theories, as this is generally where the theorists go their separate ways in constructing the supreme principle of morality. As such each theory may yield different answers to the three questions raised under morality: 1) Authoritative question: Why ought I be moral 2) Substantive question: Which interest ought I to take favourable account of 3) Distributive question: Whose interest ought I to take favourable account of
It is essential to find blind spots and preconceived ideas in the minds of philosophers, by which they were led astray into believing themselves exempt from the universal human characteristics. This Research aims to
It is identified that the Utilitarian views are entirely different from its contemporary philosophical theories of morality. Under certain circumstances, even homicide is justifiable under Utilitarianism. This paper will discuss in what kinds of circumstances
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Religious Concepts in a Kantian Philosophy for FREE!