Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
The wise Immanuel Kant in his quote said that humans should be treated as an “end in itself.” One might read this and wonder exactly what Kant try’s to portray in these words. One will never Frist r truly get what he was trying to convey in his thesis. It is important to note first that the term ends is in reference to ends and means. This is important because we must understand the context of what Kant t meant by “end in itself.” Ends refer to people or much better a rational person that is capable of judiciously thinking in the progress of their wellbeing. This said the term “means” is in reference to things, “things” such as objects.
A quote by Albert Einstein “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” one of the most influential people discussing limitations on the rational mind. The argument between empiricism and rationalism seems to be a back and forth battle between a bunch of old guys arguing about which came first the chicken or the egg. Although when they were brought together is when it seems to make the most sense. For rationalism we have the belief that reason is the primary source of all knowledge, only reason itself can give meaning to experience and separate reality from illusion. To understand truth we must be completely sure of it, this requires a rational method of inquiry based on doubt.
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
Hume and Kant – On Cause and Effect Compare and discuss the concept of causation as it appears in the philosophy of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. “Der ønskes en sammenligning af Hume og Kants analyse af årsagsbegrebet.” Units: 16.548 Introduction: This assignment has the goal of explaining and relating the concept of cause and effect as found in the philosophy of Hume and Kant. Causation is a vital concept to the human understanding of reality. Whether we will it or not it is as good as impossible to imagine the world without some notion of cause and effect. It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate.
One goes by the name “Cartesian spiral”. This suggests that the distinct and clear perception that proves Gods existence is different from the other perceptions. The Cartesian spiral is based on a mathematical equation, as “2+2=4” is clear and distinct, but a judgement and that is open to error. While the clear and distinct perception of Gods existence is just an idea and with no judgement attached. We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise.
Kant then argued that God’s existence in the ontological argument is based on a synthetic statements (‘God is that which than greater cannot be imagined’ and ‘existing is greater than not existing’) therefore more evidence and proof is required in addition to the ontological argument in order to verify the existence of God. The ontological argument also features the idea that God has necessary existence – because his definition is that he is perfect and existing is more perfect than not existing, God must have necessary existence. However Kant opposed this idea and said that if we reject the whole idea of God that his definition is no longer important and thus he
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
In his paper “There is no A Priori”, Michael Devitt presents a defense of his naturalistic account of knowledge arguing that the only way of knowing is the empirical way of knowing. Rejecting a priori knowledge based on the conclusion that the unsuccessful attempts to explain this knowledge proves it to be obscure and mysterious, he proposes the view that an adequate recognition of a holistic nature of confirmation would demonstrate that there is no reason to think that concepts of logic and mathematics are not liable to empirical revision. Devitt’s defense, however, far from offering a persuasive argument that would prove that all knowledge is empirical and justified by experience, not only raises serious problems by presenting a circular argument that fails to provide a conclusive reason for why a priori knowledge should be rejected on the grounds of its obscure connections, but also comes up short when its naturalistic conclusions are evaluated under its own standard for the justification of beliefs. Devitt begins his argument by saying that what makes naturalism an attractive approach is the fact that it postulates the thesis that “there is only one way of knowing”, and by this it is assumed he means that his theory of knowledge is to be preferred over other theories in part because of its simplicity. Although he recognizes that the fact that people have certain intuitions in cases of logic or mathematical concepts could be used to prove naturalism wrong, he quickly dismisses this position by objecting that the concept of the a priori has not been able to offer satisfactory answers to the question of its justification, and without satisfactory answers this knowledge is left mysterious and deeply obscure.
This papers aims to break down and make simpler some of the concepts around the existential-humanistic approach. This is so that the concepts make sense to any lay individual who wants to understand the approach. Initially an overview of the origins of existential approach will be discussed, followed by a discussion of the main themes of the tradition. The same will ensue for the humanistic approach and then as a final point, the incorporated values, beliefs and practices of both approaches will be combined and it will be shown how the pooled resources work within the person-centered counselling model developed by Rogers. It is probably not surprising that it is difficult to capture the essence of the