Kantian Influence

Reuschling points out that Kant’s deontology “is a moral scheme wherein God is unnecessary, because human have the ability through reason to ascertain truth and to act accordingly.” The rules are there to be implemented and followed to make sense according to reason even if previously revealed to make sense. In the deontological perspective, “faith is beside the point, because the highest claim on our lives is the imperative duty for the sake of duty.”

Immanuel Kant is widely-regarded as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time, with his teachings having more influence on other contemporary thinkers than any other philosopher of the 18th century. Fighting against the governmental and monarchical constraints of the time, Kant began his work by maintaining that all humans are free beings, who out to think autonomously, free from the dictates of external authority (SEP, 2011, pp.1). Kant

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

In the pursuit to gain the greatest understanding and respect of human rights projects and global social justice cosmopolitanism is necessary. Looking at cosmopolitism’s roots, features and limits through the lenses of authors Fine, Held and Calhoun to further address the importance of this ideal regardless of its weaknesses. Following the debate of whether critics are right about cosmopolitanisms liberal biases undermining its critical potential will be discussed, to suggest where cosmopolitanism needs adjustments in order to progress. Lastly, this paper will consider the idea that cosmopolitan ideals are more necessary then ever given the resurgence of nationalist and isolationist politics worldwide. Through an overall analysis of

Kant’s deontology emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, and respect for people in the way we live our lives. In his eyes absolute morals cannot be violated no matter the circumstance and all people could act the same way. This is a requirement of universalizablity which means that these morals that are created by everyone have to be able to be applied to everyone. For example, if someone were to put a gun to your head and say that if you didn’t give the name of a prisoner to shoot they will shoot ten more prisoners. Is this situation rational? Kant says no. By giving up the name of that prisoner you would essentially be killing them. In Kant’s view

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [2] is notoriously difficult to read and often unclear. Possibly,

The approach that we take with Kant's views is strictly based on reason. The key factor in this situation with Kant would ask if we did this action without any thought. Because Kant heavily

Kantian deontology follows the notion that our actions are based on solely on duty. This duty is derived from reason and is based on principle. It is upon this principle that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined. By stating that our actions are based on duty alone, Kant implies that one’s feelings and emotions do not play a role in morality. Simply put, emotions have no moral worth. Therefore, a person

Kant believes that all people come to moral conclusions about right and wrong based on rational thought. Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations. This might allow a person to not be considered immoral even though they have broken a moral rule, but only so long as they were motivated to adhere to some correct moral duty. Nevertheless, a correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct. It is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings; on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their forms.

Prior to World War One Europe had been the central world power. They looked at themselves as being above all other, this including countries and the people within those countries. In the first part of Michael Adas essay he explains the feelings and ideas that Europe had towards other countries and the peoples who lived within them. Not only does he touch on this subject, but also how

First and foremost, a great deal of Europe’s success would not have happened without its initial aid from the United States. After helping destroy so much of the continent, the U.S. pumped billions and billions of dollars back into the European economy through The Marshall Plan. It was named after Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who said “The world of suffering people looks to us for leadership. Their thoughts, however, are not concentrated alone on this problem. They have more immediate and terribly pressing concerns where the mouthful of food will come from, where they will find shelter tonight, and where they will find warmth. Along with the great problem of maintaining the peace we must solve the

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

All of the above, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy. He was of the view that human beings can determine and manage to live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without assistance of anyone else, even without any divine support or intervention (Guyer). In this paper we will discuss the extent to which Kant's view of human nature provides a sustainable ground work for his views on the relationship between nations. In order to determine this, different opinions of Kant will be discussed regarding what his views about the human nature and how he compared it with the nations or states.

Considering that German Philosophy and Politics was published in April of 1915, shortly after WWI began, one might grant Dewey some room for bias in his criticism of Kant, and the conclusions that he draws in relation to the war. However, these same thoughts are reinforced—though more briefly—in a later work from Characters and Events: Popular Essays in Social and Political Philosophy, “Immanuel Kant.” The essay was originally written in 1924, so it offers a post-war perspective from Dewey on Kantian thought, however, in this work, he reinforces the ideas presented in German Philosophy and Politics (however, it must be said that he gives Kant more homage in this work). Dewey states that “the Great War was in some true sense a day of reckoning for Kantian thought, and that from henceforth

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.