He goes on to observe that only good will is good sans qualification. Good will is always good in itself and not just for the things that it produces. Will is good if will comes from duty, as well as other moral motives, which do not simply conform to duty. For instance, grocers who give the right change because of fairness, rather than from the fear of being caught, do so from good will. The reasoning goal is not in producing happiness but rather producing will that can be seen to be good in it. The satisfaction of man’s desires, which is happiness, is not determinate enough to use as a workable guide. Good will cannot act as the complete and sole good, although it is the worthy condition of being happy and the highest good. Complete good can only be goodwill combined with happiness. Rationality possesses its own laws of objectiveness. Because man is rational only partially, he experiences the various laws as constraints and imperatives that he is required to follow. These imperatives are grounded on the premise that is valid for all rational beings as such. These imperatives, according to Kant, could be hypothetical, i.e. if one wants to get to end E, then he should do A, or categorical, which is he ought to perform A. Ethics that are based on imperatives that are hypothetical are heteronymous because they involve following laws set by another. Categorical imperatives are hard to understand, although their content is clear. ...Show more
Immanuel Kant considers old philosophical problems using new methods. Kant defends morality from reduction to self-interest, empirical fact, or feelings. Rather, he bases his supreme moral principle on reason…
Kant professes a secular and universal kind of morality while Hume's argument is highly subjective and could be very problematic in its applications. Hume has observed that it is our modern philosophers who define morality on pure reason and in contrast to that our ancient thinkers have considered “morals as deriving their existence from taste and sentiment”
To shed light on the metaphysics of Morals, it is first important to study the context of the work. In this regard, Immanuel Kant and his background need to be discussed to locate the study within a framework. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher of the eighteenth century and his works mostly focus on philosophy and anthropology, with Metaphysics of Morals being one of his most dominant works.
Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” is an attempt in this direction while Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals” justifies his views. Both pieces of work are contrasted below. Kant’s concepts are discussed first followed by Hume’s concepts.
Kant preached the categorical imperative, in which he stated that the principles of Universality and Reversibility (both of which will be discussed ahead in the paper) should guide human reasoning and behavior. On the other hand Hume gave precedence to human feelings over any abstract relations of rules of Universality and Reversibility as the guiding principles of human actions.
The works of Kant (1728-1804), a German philosopher, are mostly drawn from the observations and his own ideas on the nature of humans. The major emphasis of this philosopher is on the priori or pure part of the moral philosophy.
Majority of critics in art and literature have not only been enthralled by Plato’s views on the ‘Republic’ but also questioned on the validity of mimesis in art. Other critics have opted to understand the
The difference between Kant’s moral philosophy and the empirical moral philosophy is that the later is biased towards the posterior principles or those that are garnered through the observations and experiences of human beings. Kant, using this distinction, referred to the empirical moral philosophy as moral anthropology.