he Emptiness Charge in Kant’s Moral Philosophy Introduction: The Emptiness Charge in Kant’s Moral Philosophy Chapter One: Kant’s Formalism and its Emptiness Charge 1.1 Hegel’s Empty Formalism Objection 1.1.1 The Context of Categorical Imperative 1.1.2 The Limited Interpretation of Hegel’s Emptiness Charge 1.1.3 The Systematic Interpretation of Emptiness Charge 1.2. Mill’s Utilitarianism Charge 1.2.1 Mill’s Utilitarianism 1.2.2 Mill’s Consequentialism Chapter Two: The Formalistic Expressions in Kant’s Ethical Writings 2.1. Kant’s early view 2.2. The Critique of Pure Reason 2.3. The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 2.4. The Critique of Practical Reason 2.5. The Metaphysics of Morals Chapter Three: Rethinking the Emptiness …show more content…
Zweig (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) Gr ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,’ translated by M.J. Gregor in Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp. 43-108 KPV Critique of Practical Reason, translated by M.J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) KRV Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1997) KU Critique of the Power of Judgment, translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) LE Lectures on Ethics, translated by Louis Infield (New York: Harper, 1963) MS Metaphysics of Morals, translated by M.J. Gregor in Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1996) pp. 365-603 P Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morals, translat-ed by L.W. Beck in Kant: Selections (New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1988) pp. 5-9 R Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, translated by T. Greene and H.Hudson (New York: Harper Row, 1960) TP on the Common Saying: That May Be True In Theory, But It Is Of No Use in Practice, trans-lated by M.J. Gregor in Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp.
Peter Singer in his famous paper “Famine, Affluence and Morality” begins with assumptions “The suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” also he gives his second assumption that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”. Singer gives an application of his principle, by ”the drowning child in the pond” case. Imagine you are walking past a pond and you see a little toddler drowning in the shallow pond, you have 2 options now: first- you can pull out he child and save him, however you will ruin your favorite expensive shoes.
(pp. 321-322) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. In Schwehn, M. R. & Bass, D. C. (Ed.)
Aaliyah Ripley Final Exam 05/04/16 There are different forms of attachment the mother and infant have which occurs around 8 or 9 months. There are four different types of attachment, secure, avoidant, resistant, and disorganized. Secure attachment is which happens to about 60 - 65% of babies in the United States. It’s when the mother leaves and the baby may or may not cry but when the mother comes back, all the infant wants to do is be with its mother.
In “The Subjectivity of Values,” J.L Mackie argues for Error Theory. Error Theory is a version of moral skepticism. This version of moral skepticism denies the existence of right and wrong as “intrinsically normative entities on fundamental grounds as unsure about what kinds of things such entities would be, if they existed” (Mackie 1977). His ‘Central Argument’ article affirms two things: Objective values provide reason to motivate anyone aware, and the awareness of some objective reason would provide reason in such a way that everyone would be motivated (to some extent) to act in accordance with the value.
As I began reading Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant claims that the NLF of the CI tests for moral worth. In the second section of the book, Kant begins to explain the categorical imperative as the opposite of as hypothetical imperative identifying situations for which each imperative would fall. Explaining that a hypothetical imperative is only followed in certain situations as a means to something else while the CI is followed unconditionally no matter the situation “as good in itself” and to its own end. In this paper, I intend to show what the NLF has to do with testing moral worth and how the criteria are a formidable way to judge morality. I plan on completing this by quoting and analyzing relative information on the
Kant emphasizes that only the law and pure respect for the law should determine the will. However, when taken in context with his other remarks in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, it is unclear how the law can be anything other than arbitrary. Kant claims that results do not matter as it is the will that determines morality. This means that no matter the law, following it is the moral thing to do. This raises significant problems.
In this essay I will explore two articles that explain the moral theory. The first article is called “ Selections from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant. The second article that I will be comparing to Immanuel Kant’s is called “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” by Onora O’Niell. I will also be giving a brief summary and comparing each article. By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg. 174).
The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from
He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. The fundamental idea of Kant 's “critical philosophy” — especially in his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) — is human autonomy. He argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality. Therefore, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical
There are negative theological implications to Mmanuel Kant ’s philosophy. According to the reception of Mmanuel Kant’s work and traditional interpretation, his philosophy’s impact on theology as a discipline had been primarily negative. The Pure Reason’s critique cuts off all access to knowledge of God, and, in such doing, demolished the foundations for any positive theology and the dogmatic metaphysics’ foundation. Since traditional interpreters understood these theoretical restrictions on the inescapable knowledge of God, Kant’s subsequent philosophical missions were thought to aim merely at reducing the stifling effects when it looked on theologically significant matters.
The most central and perhaps most controversial thesis that Kant argues for in the Critique of Pure Reason is that of transcendental idealism, namely, the notions that there is a distinction between things as they appear to us and things as they are in themselves, that we do not and cannot have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, and that things as they appear to us are, in some sense and to some extent, mind-dependent. Interpretations of Kant’s arguments for this thesis have divided philosophers into two camps: one-worlders and two-worlders. In this paper, I reject the latter view and focus on three different one-world interpretations to show the strengths and weaknesses of each in order to find the most comprehensive and coherent
Kant’s Categorical Imperative also includes three versions: the formula from universal law, the formula from natural law, and the formula
Kant’s Categorical Imperative of Universal Laws and Humanity People have an intrinsic worth and value above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there is a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and that should be uniformly abided by that enables humanity to function as an amicable society.
Tyler Smith 17th and 18th Century Philosophy Kant’s Notion of Pure Reason and The Influence of It Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who set major precedents for the philosophy world. By combining two trains of thought which had long been debated, Kant was able to be one of the most influential Philosophers in history. In this paper I will argue multiple things. I will argue the rationalist and empiricist which influenced Kant the most. I will argue that Kant’s synthesis was successful.