Kantian Philosophy - Term Paper Example

Kant Kantian Philosophy 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. Conversely, the standards were either only based on desire and the tools of rationality or were emphasized on sui generis rational instincts. Kant also approved the basic principles described by his predecessors that were an examination of the practical reasons which will disclose the obligation that the rational mediators must rely on to believe in instrumental principles (Guyer, 2006). However, he said that a non-instrumental principle called CI should be complied with to grasp the moral requirements there in, and should be visible to basic rational agency. The argument was based in the premise that outstanding doctrine must be considered as sovereign and self regulating, or free from the restrictions of self-sufficient will. Therefore, in Kant’s moral philosophy, the idea was to conceal the reason which outreaches the practical reasons that go beyond the Human ‘slave’ to his desires. Additionally, a self regulating reason in the life of every person could be based on the crucial grounds for reviewing the worthiness of equal respect and also equal importance. The most significant of Kant’s positions are compiled in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’ which was later just called as ‘Groundwork’ but was a much more enriched and developed version (Wood, 2005). Later books such as ‘The Metaphysics of Morals’, ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’ and many others were based on the principles of Groundwork, but in recent years many scholars have not been happy with the findings of Kant which will be described later in this text. Kant maintained a deontological view, one where individuals should be considered an end, rather than a means to an end. Kant believed that a legitimate act, one that is good, must meet with ethical imperatives to justify it. Thus, the highest good is to act from duty. Kant rejected a measure of conducting goodwill toward others when the motivation behind that act did not stem from moral constructs of legitimate and ethical principles. When an act is motivated by self-gain, regardless of the contribution to serving humankind, it is not justified morally by universal values (Guyer, 2006). The doctrine of responsibility of Kant began with the following perspectives: If the aim of aim was to get happiness, then all we will ask for will be gratification and pleasure and optimism that would lead our way to ultimate happiness. But, happiness is not in our control to accomplish, and happiness is basically a chance of luck. Furthermore, if we want to eschew skepticism and nihilism, and our ethics tell us to work that Kant believes that ethics must be universal, appropriate for all human race, and unconditional, which means no exceptions allowed (Wood, 2005). II. Opponents of Kant Philosophy The opponents of Kant’s Philosophy are many and are divided into three categories. The first and most important ones are the Ethical Relativists- who belief that there is no reason or logic that could be established for moral principles and universal ethics. These critics support the possibility that as Kant states virtue results from a realistic reasoning, it should not be the case. Schopenhauer and others believe that virtue has nothing in relation to rational life and on the contrary it can be based on emotions as the Machiavellian rational expediency believes in. (Janaway, 1999). The Utilitarianists are the people who consider providing utility as their first priority for the masses with little stress on the means to accomplish it. Kant began with the abstract concepts that in an attempt to know the real insights, he began from the abstract judgment of the taste in an attempt to examine the knowledge of worthy elements of perception. Also, these people think that Kant was not a beauty admirer person himself. He was more interested in how a judgment or subjective statement would know beauty and collectively suitable, as if it relied on the basic quality of the object (Janaway, 1999). The Teleogists are concerned with achievement of the most appropriate ethical end justifies moral behavior with much less emphasis on the means by which the consequence was achieved. They don’t like the idea of Kant that the subjective statement that nature was made with a deliberate aim and does not unavoidably confirms truth or objectivity. They are also against the idea that Kant presented that apparent purposeful combination of organic bodies can never be explained from mere causes of mechanics; it is ridiculous for a man even to bring forth any thought that Newton might any day arise to tell us the genesis of a grass blade made from natural laws that the design has been executed. Schopenhauer also said that Kant did not go far enough as one idea of nature can never be fully explained with other idea of nature as all of them are different from each other. He came up with examples of differing provinces nature has of chemistry, organics, magnetism, electricity, crystallization, and mechanics. Kant only described the idea of mechanics and organic (Janaway, 1999). III. Points of Potential Resolution Many historians and critics have not agreed to the idea of Kant to be considered as a philosopher. Some critics consider his findings of such classic value that they consider them to be a conclusion of all the philosophers before him. On the other hand, others consider it as a false beginning as when he considered the criticism of tentative reasoning to find out what ever is mandatory in our area of knowledge and what is universal and truthful. The knowledge is derived from mind itself and not only from practical world have we dwelt in. The challengers of this idea of Kant say that as he possess the artificial talent which made him manufacture a thought system, but lacked in the quality of analysis which a philosopher undertakes when considering whatever is happening in his mind. Also, as a thinker he was able to mitigate the philosophy to an assessment of the knowledge that did not have the capability to scrutinize whatever goes on inside our mind is grave defect (Ko?rner, 1955). However, whatsoever be our judgment of Kant, we can never underrate his prime importance. Within the boundaries of philosophical science, the thoughts described by Kant were the beginning of many philosophers’ works such as Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Ficte. In England, Agnostic School from Spencer to Hamilton was based on the motivation generated from the unenthusiastic approach and pessimistic teachings of ‘Critique of pure Reason’. France witnessed the neo-Criticism of Renouvier and Positivism of Comte. The history of natural sciences is embedded with Laplace, in the perspective that amounts for the basis of universe from ancient cosmic nebula to natural evolution (Wood, 2005). IV. Conclusion Many theologians and philosophers give evidence based on objective data on which Catholic religion relies and is not capable of bringing any proof from provisional reasoning; but are verifiable from realistic reasons, vital action, sentiment, or will. This position is perhaps not reliable as the recent events prove it. The Vitalism of Blondel, the Immanentist movement, the anti Scholasticism of ‘Annales de philosophie chretienne’, and many other recent endeavors towards a non-intelligent repentant towards faith are rooted in Kantism. The key of condemnation have gained ecclesiastical powers which show clearly that there is not a lucis title to be regarded as an alternative to intellectualistic repentant which has its roots in the Scholastics Realism (Guyer, 2006). Work Cited Janaway, Christopher. The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Guyer, Paul. Kant. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. Ko?rner, Stephan. Kant. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1955. Print. Wood, Allen W. Kant. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2005. Print. Read More