What Would Freud Say about Kant's Categorical Imperative - Assignment Example

• Using a quotation from the course reading ONLY show what Aristotle and Augustine would say about the revenge plan of Lee Geum-ja, a woman released from prison after serving the sentence for a murder she did not commit. Refer to at least two scenes from the movie. (Movie: Sympathy For Lady Vengeance)

Justice is one of the crucial moral concepts. Most philosophers would want to view justice as a moral virtue and at the same time an admirable quality of the political arena. Aristotle goes ahead to contain justice in what is lawful and fair with elements of equal distributions. Therefore both philosophers view justice as crucial of all moral virtues. Their theories advocate a sustainable understanding of justice when it comes to regarding people as free agents. Both philosophy and democracy have components that define human dignity. They both use language to express arguments in a free manner. Responsive use of any form of language forms the basis of a good democracy. Throughout history language has been viewed to depict the speaker’s mind whether verbal or non-verbal. When dealing with human behaviour, the significance of such issues such as temper and self-control are in most cases over understood. On the same note temperance regulates appetite and the extent to which our bodies desire some virtues.

Augustine’s conception of justice explores on the virtue that every person should receive his or her due accordingly. He believes that all the laws governing people’s lives should go hand in hand with what people term as ‘God’s eternal law’. Therefore law does not exist in any circumstance characterised by an unfair law. Thus any law put in place that is in contrary with God’s eternal laws cannot be accepted morally. Such unfair laws cannot be obeyed in an almost good conscious. The just are to be given a chance to serve people for their own common good. The powerful should not be tolerated at all as they will only want to satisfy their own coon interest when offering the final judgement. He compares societies and their level of just in relation to power might and righteousness. In this case he believes that a justified society must be accompanied by sufficient element of Christian love. Leaders have to possess good qualities that apart from just an element of power in order to be able to serve all people as required. There are circumstances where laws passed are unfair since the people involved only want to satisfy their personal interests and those close to them. Aristotle and Augustine strongly oppose this in their work as they compare true justice to Christian love. Christian love can only be felt when all people get satisfied by any laws in place.

• What would Bentham and Mill say about Tuskegee? What would rule and act utilitarianism say?

Laws and morals are techniques that people employ in various stages of their lives so that they can be happy and please the surroundings too. They went on to argue that most people may think that one could possibly avoid pain and suffering as much as possible by trying all means to come up with a smooth life full of happiness. They however conclude that such an incident can possibly alter and break rules at the same time regardless of what people may like. In this case people should live with the goal of getting real sustainable happiness as opposed to just living along with the laws. The ends at times justify the means but at times this does not happen. People can possibly be in their best minds to make choices that determine the nature of their lives. Proper analyses of our actions enable us to rule out whether the outcomes are ethical or not by coming up with more happiness other than lots of pain and suffering in most people. There are no standard guides, rules or principles that are perfect in nature and therefore we must be in a position to find out whether we are doing bad or good by regular check on our outcomes. Bentham believes that one should act in a manner to maximise happiness while according to Mill the best way is by trying to reduce any negativity.

Act utilitarianism explores on one action at a time and that each action is only good if the results or consequences come in with the best sustainable happiness. On the other hand the action seizes to be good if no trace of happiness is produced. Therefore act utilitarianism puts more emphasis on maximum happiness as a result of a particular action. For instance when determining whether one should or should not cheat in an exam, a number of facts about the exam have to be looked into. So in this case one needs to think of the possible grade obtainable with both cheating and no cheating in that particular exam and whether you may need this particular content in future. Second you think of the chances of being caught cheating in the exam room and finally how the grades that you obtain under both circumstances may make you and those around you feel. Up to this extent is when the utilitarian can be able to offer advice on whether to cheat or not. On the other hand rule utilitarianism puts much emphasis on the general actions and rules other than exploring one action at a time. In this case an action is better placed if it follows a general rule to produce maximum happiness. In the same case of cheating in an exam, specific actions of cheating are not explored but rather the general thing of cheating and its implications to the person in question and the people around him.

• What would Freud say about Kant's categorical imperative?

Categorical imperative puts us together regardless of the outcome. For instance every person is obliged not to lie even if you will not be able to meet your specific desires. This imperative does not rely on facts but rather on morals that largely depend on a particular reason. But according to Freud conscience comes from the unconscious mind. Here a person’s common sense and morals is a product of the super ego. Super ego embraces good character but condemns anything bad in terms of character and behaviour. Kant was trying to come up with some sort of philosophy that does not rely on any form of religion. Freud bases his work on science and things that can actually be observed. This brings out the major difference in regard to Kant’s work on morals and religion. Freud therefore analyses our lives as unconscious. Even though religion meets some or all of the mental needs, it is majorly meant to fulfil needs and wishes hence giving people an illusion of what needs to be true rather than that which is actually true in nature. He claims that morals are a product of the super ego and are determined by the respective experiences that people have.

Categorical imperative unconditionally seeks results of an action for its own good. Therefore demands of this type produce similar difficulties and problems since actions rely on a maxim of a universal law. In this case every person views it as a determining factor to control the way things should occur. For Kant, if one begins with better morals he is automatically ethical whether the consequences may turn out to be positive or negative. He places morals before happiness and therefore assumes that for one to be happy he has to be able to follow specific guidelines and rules. For instance a case where one decides to borrow money from someone else and promising to return the same money after certain period of time. On the contrary the lender does not have an idea that the person in question just used a false promise in order to get the money. If by any means such situations were overlooked, then false promises could not be applied in any borrowing. For Kant an act becomes imperative when it has to be used by everyone. Therefore it will order one to carry out a certain task as long as it is right in itself without any guide or strings attached. At the same time categorical imperative is not conditional and does not rely on any circumstance and target.

• What would Confucius and Kant say about Hardwig's essay "is there a duty to die?"

Hardwig believes that patients have a duty to die as long as their presence poses more harm to those looking after them. Individual autonomy provides one with the ability to live in accordance with own feelings without actually being controlled by any external thoughts. Although according to Confucius and Kant, duty to die is an individual’s task regardless of the type of hardship that one imposes on others taking care of him because of prolonged existence Exploring the issue of autonomy has not only been featured in education but also in medical sector and a number of legal battles and rights. Throughout history autonomy has represented independence in thinking morally. Moral autonomy is characterised and reflected by independence that pushes one to act. Medical autonomy facilitates a patient’s happiness and wellbeing. The whole idea of ‘a duty to die ‘is in fact so frightening in nature. Allowing medical assisted suicide can actually make people think that they have the duty to die. Such people can only be as a result of external moral reasoning or pressure. John Hardwig comes up with some of the most challenging questions and it becomes even worse when he comes to a point where whoever has a duty to die. He claimed that one fails morally by attaining the age of around seventy five to eighty years without being set to die. He also thinks it is somehow uncommon to get to old age without having the issue of death in mind.

Hardwig supports his criticism by claiming that a good number of old people point out that their main remnant target in life is to avoid imposing any kind of hardship to their families and loved ones. He feels that he is not mentally upside down to have such a thought that someday he will have a duty to die. Technology and modern medical activities have made several people think that they have a right to care and life regardless of the hardship and burdens they impose on other people. He even goes further to claim that these advanced types of medicines save people from acute diseases but make them prone to more chronic ones for longer periods of time that most cannot take care of themselves. However Kant claims that older people who are seriously ill and even dying are already bearing some hardship and therefore it would not be in order to ask them to get extra burden of accepting death. It is also not acceptable religious wise as God is the only one who can give or claim life.

Reference

Canvas Website: https://myusf.usfca.edu/