According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks. It is unable to show that for every (ordinary) person, acting morally will always be in that person’s self-interest. There are also immoral acts other than self-interested ones that are at least as much in opposition to morality. A successful defeat must show that all immoral acts are irrational. Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so.
This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good. The postulate of immortality is very much interwoven with the postulate of God. Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope.
According to Kant’s theory this is an immoral action. In this case, we are acting in order to reach our desired end of having twenty dollars, not for a good motive. Kant’s morality also requires that we recognize that others must be treated fairly and not as means by which we can achieve our own ends, such as in this scenario. Lastly, we can only consider this action moral
How does Kant argue in support of transcendental idealism in the “Transcendental Aesthetic” and how is this related to the passage BXVI of the preface to the second edition of the Critique (the “Copernican Turn”)? In the Preface to the second edition of The Critique of Pure Reason Immanuel Kant observes that, “If after many preliminaries and preparations are made, a science gets stuck as soon as it approaches its end, or if in order to reach this end it must often go back and set out on a new path…then we may be sure that such study merely groping about, that it is still far from having entered upon a course of science… ”(Bvii-Bviii). He is referring here to the study of metaphysics. Kant underlines his belief that the study of this subject so far has not been conclusive or productive in explaining how knowledge is given to us because of the approach taken by his contemporaries. In the Critique Kant introduces his doctrine of transcendental idealism in an attempt to solve what he believes to be this great problem in the study of metaphysics.
In this essay, I will argue that Schopenhauer’s metaphysics inevitably leads to pessimism, since even though a temporary optimism may be found through the escape from the will via asceticism or aesthetics, the end result is still ultimately a kind of ‘nothingness’. This renders life purposeless and hence meaningless, which is profoundly and dismally pessimistic. I will argue that his metaphysics is based on a false premise that all willing springs from lack or deficiency and I hope to demonstrate that, even if we concede that willing is the inner content and essence of life, that it is not only positive but can be creative and the solution, not the cause, of suffering. Secondly, I will argue that his partial optimism does not go far enough and is ill-explained; such release, as is offered, coming from ‘its own accord’ seems inconsistent with the notion of the blind, striving and as Young puts it, ‘evil’ will which is supposed to supersede all else. I will conclude with an examination of Young’s claim that Schopenhauer’s metaphysics is not pessimistic and my own assertion that while I must concede with Young, that certain keynotes – for example, the universality of mankind – point towards something positive, Schopenhauer’s thesis falls short of ‘love’, or any meaningful transcendence which for me, would be the supreme optimism.
As free beings we were obligated to do what was 'reasonable', a free person has to act rationally - has to act without inconsistency. His assistance to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, as well as aesthetics has had a thoughtful impact on nearly every philosophical faction that followed him. It is unfeasible, Kant argues, to expand knowledge to the supersensible monarchy of tentative metaphysics. The cause that knowledge has these restraints, Kant argues, is that the mentality plays a vigorous role in comprising the features of knowledge and restraining the mind's admittance to the empirical monarchy of space and time. 4 John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham.
Why for Hobbes is the desire for power so central to his conception of the ‘natural condition of mankind’, which can only be remedied by the creation of an absolute sovereign? In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes outlines the necessity of the existence of the state given the natural conditions and inclinations of mankind. This essay shall discuss what the natural condition of mankind is, particularly in relation to its desire to power, and how this condition can only be rectified by the creation of an absolute sovereign. Hobbes contends that as humans, we are egoistic. We act selfishly in order to survive.
In one of Machiavelli quotes, he talked about what a prince could do to get out of trouble and to become a more better leader. He states, “[The Prince] is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid, and irresolute; this a prince must guard against as a rock of danger, and so contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity, and fortitude...and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one many think of deceiving or cozening him.” A prince will be dishonored if he has the characteristics changeable, a carefree person, effeminate, showing a lack of confidence, and an uncertain person. If a prince contains these kinds of characteristics, then they need to immediately change themselves. They
The Ubermensch is presented as the creator of new values and solution to this problem. The Ubermensch will not be confined or influenced by the concepts of good and evil. Nietzsche forecasted that with the death of god, humanity would overcome and surpass it’s concept of morality. Nietzsche believed these values derived from a belief in god and good/evil were counter productive for man and limited us by restraining our will to power. Nietzsche saw the morality of the individual as herd minded morality.
The first of these dangers is susceptibility of Americans to extreme individualism, and isolation from the community. Secondly Tocqueville fears that American’s would develop an excessive desire for material things. Moreover, he believes democracy would cause American’s to lose the ability to think for themselves and, instead conform to society. Tocqueville’s final concern of Democracy was that an intense aspiration for total equality would in turn create a society who sacrifices many rights. Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education.