 | |
| (I found this relevant because Kant's moral philosophy has many different aspects that don't always coordinate so not sure how anyone could ever fully understand what he was thinking) |
Kant was a very interesting figure in the world of
philosophy and his works have been very influential yet controversial. I agree
with Kant in his principle of universalizabilty- that we should act as we would
accept of others to act. However, I also agree with the criticism that there
are too few guidelines and limitations to acts becoming universalized. I
disagree completely with Kant’s views as emotions being irrelevant to moral
acts. I feel without such emotions, moral acts wouldn’t be carried out as much
as they are. It’s hard to be precise in saying that because very, very few
people can say they don’t feel those emotions when coming to a moral decision,
but the opinion I have on emotions being very relevant to moral acts remains. I
agree AND disagree that consequences should not be considered in the judgment
of whether an action is moral or not. We all make mistakes, we all have had
moments where our intentions were pure but it produced a different outcome than
the one originally planned. However, sometimes the consequences can be too big
to overlook. I do agree that the sense of duty should play a role in moral
decisions, without a sense of duty most people probably wouldn’t do as many
nice things as they do – but maybe that’s just being pessimistic. Another
question that has come to my mind is how can we ever truly tell a person’s
intentions? I mean, I can tell you my
intentions were pure and I meant no harm in whatever it is that I’m doing, but
I could just be lying. It’s difficult, and nearly impossible, to actually know
for a fact what a person’s true intentions were. I have much respect for Kant
and his views, although I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. He has
contributed so much to philosophy and his ethics, although flawed, do bring to
light some amazing points.
This link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQcC1qYP08s
, is just more information and a different perspective on Kant’s ethics!
Enjoy!!!!
Poor Little Jimmy! If even his friend Kant won't respect his right not to be used a means to the axe-murderers's nefarious ends, there's little hope for him. Bu what if everyone lied to axe-murderers? I don't have a problem with that myself, and don't know anyone who does.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, Kant's notion of freedom as binding oneself voluntarily to a rational law so as to live the dutiful life still seems worth working to preserve in some form or other.