Respond to the class discussion - Essay Example

Instead, he will expose his own family and himself to tensions that will destroy harmony. Even his own relations with his friend would take an unpleasant turn once his family would be suffering. He may, at a later point in time, regret having helped his friend and curse him for his failure, while the friend may not even feel sorry for him! Therefore, Kant’s theory would recommend complying with the first formulation rather than the third. Response to class fellows on first discussion: Marta: I agree to you in your analysis of the first formulation of Kant not for the reason you have provided but because that was the demand of the first formulation.

You have given the matter an altogether different dimension of perspective that I think is not quite relevant here. You have said that father should not lie because lying is wrong, and not because he has an obligation towards his family. That would be completely wrong and inconsiderate of father if he chooses not to lie because lying is bad. . Cshena: You are right in your analysis of the first formulation of Kant. I also believe that father should resolve to save his career and his family’s future instead of saving his friend.

It is the requirement of the first formulation of Kant. If father helps his friend, he will still gain blame of his own wife and seven children, so the job is plainly not perfect. Also, father will earn the praise of his friend for having saved his life. This renders his act imperfect in light of the first formulation of Kant. I also consent with you in your interpretation of Kant’s third formulation because it fundamentally requires father to fulfill his duty towards the society irrespective of his personal concerns.

Henke: You have come up with a general response to the question and have not clearly analyzed the case separately in light of the first and third formulations of Kant. However, I do consent with you when you say that father should be protective towards his own family. He has got a wife and seven children to take care of and for whom, he is the sole bread earner. I also like the way you have analyzed the matter in a broader background that involves all people of society. You said that it would be wrong for father to lie because this would encourage everybody to lie and that would be wrong.

However, I think you could have looked at it differently! You could have said, “What if every family in the society hid a Jewish family?” That would obviously have raised government’s suspicion for its own people, and ultimately, life of not only the Jews but also of non-Jews would be on stake. Response to class fellows on the second discussion: Parker: I