To tell or not to tell immanuel kants categorical imperative

Otto might well say, indeed, that Goodman does simply what we expect to be done in the moral tradition of religious Israel, rendering God increasingly comforting, reasonable, just, and loving. Yet numinosity, as something rather different, and God's own contrary personality, continue to peek out. Also, there is a tendency to this progression, for which Christianity might be offered, as Otto and Jung does, as the logical culmination of the process.

To tell or not to tell immanuel kants categorical imperative

Kant pursues this project through the first two chapters of the Groundwork. The point of this first project is to come up with a precise statement of the principle or principles on which all of our ordinary moral judgments are based.

The judgments in question are supposed to be those that any normal, sane, adult human being would accept on due rational reflection. Nowadays, however, many would regard Kant as being overly optimistic about the depth and extent of moral agreement.

But perhaps he is best thought of as drawing on a moral viewpoint that is very widely shared and which contains some general judgments that are very deeply held.

In any case, he does not appear to take himself to be primarily addressing a genuine moral skeptic such as those who often populate the works of moral philosophers, that is, someone who doubts that she has any reason to act morally and whose moral behavior hinges on a rational proof that philosophers might try to give.

He rests this second project on the position that we — or at least creatures with rational wills — possess autonomy. The argument of this second project does often appear to try to reach out to a metaphysical fact about our wills.

This has led some readers to the conclusion that he is, after all, trying to justify moral requirements by appealing to a fact — our autonomy — that even a moral skeptic would have to recognize. Yet in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant also tried to show that every event has a cause.

Kant recognized that there seems to be a deep tension between these two claims: Kant thought that the only way to resolve this apparent conflict is to distinguish between phenomena, which is what we know through experience, and noumena, which we can consistently think but not know through experience.

To tell or not to tell immanuel kants categorical imperative

Our knowledge and understanding of the empirical world, Kant argued, can only arise within the limits of our perceptual and cognitive powers. On one interpretation Hudsonone and the same act can be described in wholly physical terms as an appearance and also in irreducibly mental terms as a thing in itself.

On this compatibilist picture, all acts are causally determined, but a free act is one that can be described as determined by irreducibly mental causes, and in particular by the causality of reason. A second interpretation holds that the intelligible and sensible worlds are used as metaphors for two ways of conceiving of one and the same world Korsgaard ; Allison ; Hill a, b.

When we are engaging in scientific or empirical investigations, we often take up a perspective in which we think of things as subject to natural causation, but when we deliberate, act, reason and judge, we often take up a different perspective, in which we think of ourselves and others as agents who are not determined by natural causes.

We also need some account, based on this principle, of the nature and extent of the specific moral duties that apply to us. To this end, Kant employs his findings from the Groundwork in The Metaphysics of Morals, and offers a categorization of our basic moral duties to ourselves and others.

In addition, Kant thought that moral philosophy should characterize and explain the demands that morality makes on human psychology and forms of human social interaction. These topics, among others, are addressed in central chapters of the second Critique, the Religion and again in the Metaphysics of Morals, and are perhaps given a sustained treatment in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View.

Further, a satisfying answer to the question of what one ought to do would have to take into account any political and religious requirements there are.The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy [H.

J. Paton] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A classic exposition of Kant's ethical thought. Immanuel Kant () Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible [§14, A92/B, note].This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.

The suicide has no bearing, at least for the Categorical Imperative, on whether telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is impossible to judge whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide.

Like most right-thinking people, I’d always found Immanuel Kant kind of silly. He was the standard-bearer for naive deontology, the “rules are rules, so follow them even if they ruin everything” of moral philosophy. But lately, I’ve been starting to pick up a different view.

There may have. Kant's philosophy is generally designated as a system of transcendental criticism tending towards Agnosticism in theology, and favouring the view that Christianity is a non-dogmatic religion.. Immanuel Kant was born at Königsberg in East Prussia, 22 April, ; died there, 12 February, From his sixteenth to his twenty-first year, he studied at the university of his native city, having.

The categorical imperative can only be based on something that is an "end in itself", that is, an end that is not a means to some other need, desire, or purpose. Kant believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act on the moral law.

categorical imperative | Summary & Examples |