Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

Theory of knowledge The source of human knowledge has been attempted to be explained by philosophers. Due to this, thereare two ways that have been used to explain the source of human knowledge in that on one side, rationalism explains that human knowledge is based on rationality or reason while on the other hand, empiricism states that human knowledge is based on experience or posteriori knowledge Many people have argued that human knowledge originate from experience but it is more sensible to argue that neither side can be neglected instead, what need to be done is that both schools of thought that explain the source of human knowledge be combined so that it makes more sense. Hence this can be classified as justified true belief. Knowledge is basically a belief or conviction that someone has in something or a thing. However, knowledge can be enhanced by a combination of reason and experience. In order for human mind to make a belief that is dependable or reliable, there has to be substantive evidence on it. This, therefore, leads to justification of our beliefs. Justification is established by the distinction between believing that something is true and between knowing that something is what it is. For instance, for a belief to be justified, it has to be endorsed by some other idea so that it can be dependable or relied upon. More so, the concept supporting it must be believed to be true and lastly, it is significant that we have a substantive or credible and viable reason for us to believe that the idea endorsing our belief is actually real. When all these ideas are put together, it constitutes true and credible knowledge. Additionally, it is important that our knowledge that we acquire be true or real. Truth is the capability of the information acquired being consistent with evident presented and truths about it. Thus, all information is believed to be true and it is known to be true, which in turn makes up credible, reliable knowledge. Rationality is the ability to act using reason in relation to the facts of reality of certain scenario or situation (Allen 31). Thus, if one is having false knowledge, they are not in a position to act rationally but on the other hand, if they have true and credible knowledge, they will be in a position to act or behave rationally. It is vital to note that it is possible for people to act reasonably or rationality without their knowledge since they posses wrong knowledge. The only way to avoid such kind of situation is that individuals need to reason cautiously about any scenario before they act on it. Immanuel Kant formulated his principles regarding what is right and wrong. He developed a system of three questions he referred to as formulations which an individual need to ask before undertaking any action in order to decide upon ethicality of the action. It is significant for a person to ask himself if the action they are about to partake corresponds to a rule, which should be used universally. It is good to view other people as our end objective rather than the means to gain personal goals. For Kant, the driving force is a determining factor to what extent can an action be regarded as ethical. This driving force is known as motive. Kant’s objective morality can be well understood from a more precise philosophical vocabulary (Allen 36-7). Although, it is natural that everything in the universe acts in accordance with the law, Kant argues that only rational beings in obedience and respect to the objective principle influenced by practical reason can influence their actions. Human beings have got subjective impulses such as desires and inclinations that may contradict how they reason. According to Kant, human beings hold a significant place in creation and morality can be said to be ultimate commandment of imperative or reason. For instance, objective principle includes acting in accordance with the law and ignoring other agents such as inclinations and desires in making moral judgments. Moral action is not justified if it is done out of sense of pity. According to Kant, moral action should not be based on a person’s feelings or pity nor the desire to get a reward but not on what you ought to do as a person. For instance, using Kantian categorical imperative to assist a schoolchild to cross a busy street is due to the pity for him not moral action. However, incase you help the student cross the street because you have a sense of duty is justified as moral action. Motive or driving force is the leading factor in Kantian ethics, therefore there is the possibility of an act having negative aftermath despite being a moral action. For instance, when helping a schoolchild cross the street and in the process, the boy is knocked down by a car; your action remains to be moral (Allen 42). Therefore, hypothetical imperative calls for an action for the sake of some formulated or desired purpose or end. Hypothetical actions dictate or compel actions in any given situation. For instance, if a person needs to attain knowledge, they should learn. According to Kant, rules of prudence are achieved priori and have universal objective such as happiness while rules of skill are achieved through experience. Therefore, any moral principle about how to behave or act is hypothetical, because it states that the ultimate goal ought to be moral. Hypothetical imperatives only tell us how to act in order to attain a specific objective. On the other hand, categorical imperative unconditionally calls for engagement in an action for its own sake. It is constrained by the rule of universality and any rational mind understands categorical imperative. In this sense, it demands that a person should act according to the maxim or law. In his view of categorical imperative, each individual regards himself as determining by its choices to act or behave in certain manner, which everyone including the person himself will always act according to the similar principle in the future. Therefore, it is easy to evaluate human actions of different varieties using categorical imperative. In addition, Kant proposed that morality ought to be categorical because some moral obligations arise when other individuals are not involved. He argues that it would be contradictory to universalize the maxim of affecting one’s owns life if it promises more suffering than good (Allen 55-7). He argued that as human beings, we have a perfect duty or obligation to ourselves not to infringe on our happiness. The notion of objective principle of morality demands for use of reason in making moral decisions that best suits the actor while on the other hand, categorical imperative will demand a person to act according to the maxim which may negatively influence a person’s decision. The value of consequences dictates the rightness of an action because the person has to assess the possible consequences of the actions they are about to engage in. Such actions are specific and significant to the actors because they belief that their actions will bring maximum happiness to their life. Utilitarianism consquentialism is related to the ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is a normative theory which states that a person’s actions or behavior ought to be conducted from the perspective of self-interest. In similar manner, consquentialism is based on assessing possible outcomes of an action that brings happiness to the individual. Kant believed that there are certain things like lying, murder, or stealing that are not accepted in society even if they are intended to bring joy to society. For Kant, the question that we ask ourselves before making any decision is if everybody will act the way I act rationally and if the answer is no, then the action should not be done. The other question is that; is a person’s actions justifiable to meeting the targets of other human beings or are they just for their own personal satisfaction? If the answer is no, then we must avoid to perform the action. According to act-utilitarianism, people are required to propagate those acts that will result in the greatest good for the greatest number in society (Allen 60). For instance, the result of giving funds to charity organization would be seen as act utilitarianism because the funds increase the happiness of many people. Rule utilitarianism demands that people ought to follow those rules that will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people in society. The act utilitarianism considers only the consequences of or actions while rule utilitarianism considers the results or consequences that of adhering to rule of conduct. The first version of rule utilitarianism conforms that actions are morally upright when they adhere to the rules that results in greatest good or in other words, right and wrong is a function of correctness of the laid down rule. The second version of rule utilitarianism base its argument on the greater utility of adhering or conforming to a certain rule with the hope that following such rule will yield good results than giving room for exceptions to be formulated in individual instances even if good results can be obtained from those instances. The problem of knowing the results of our actions is that some people may not be willing to be responsible for their own actions because they are motivated by egoistic imaginations. In addition, a person may feel guilty of accomplishing a given task using unacceptable means to satisfy his desires and inclinations. Knowing our actions may overcome the demand to constantly do cost-benefit analysis which cannot be practical in some situations and may influence our ability to calculate the results of our actions on other people’s welfare. In certain circumstances, it would be plausible to break rules in order to maintain the greatest utility. Kant believed in supreme rule that he called the categorical imperative that determines our moral duties. In these sense imperative is simply a command; for example, when somebody tells you; stop playing that piano! Or don’t beat animals! Kant went ahead and formulated a principle that makes one to be known as a good person. This was determined by certain standards like moral worth of that person; in such situation, a person’s action determines his moral worth of doing wrong or right. In Kantian principles, the concept of humanity formula is vital as it makes us to recognize and appreciate the existence of other people as human beings therefore they need to be treated with respect. It is not morally justified to see other human beings as means only but as an end to themselves (Allen 81-3). The main factor to this rule was recognizing the essentiality of human beings. Our humanity is made of different collection of characters that makes us distinct from other people this includes abilities to do certain tasks in order to achieve our ends. Kant included the formula of autonomy in his ethics, in this sense he argued that human beings tend to focus most on universal laws such as self-interests and ignore other people. This declares that every person need to be accorded his or her personal autonomy to do what interests them and at the end brings happiness to their life. Despite these fundamental principles by Kant, his ethics has been criticized on several situations. For example, his approach does not justify some laid down intricate scenarios in life. For instance if there is conflict of duties: testifying the truth and not revealing your best friends before a court of law who stole company money, will you say the truth and save the company from collapsing or protect your friends and leave the company to collapse. In such situation, many people will opt to save their friends because they have desired interest when their friend is released (Allen 88). Critics have argued that Kant in his teachings dismisses some emotions such pity and compassion as not moral but that is not true because pity or compassion can influence a person to make a right or wrong decision. For example, having compassion and helping a schoolchild cross the street is not bad, why it should not be considered as moral. Summarily, Kantian categorical imperative has been influential in shaping human morality. Humanity has been respected as they are guided by the principles that Kant suggested. In addition, his teachings came to influence the writings of other philosophers who followed him. Using categorical imperative, a person can be in a position to judge whether the action they engage in are morally upright or not. Works Cited Allen, Wycliffe. Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Read More