The Unique Categorical Imperative of Kant Essay Example for Free

The Unique Categorical Imperative of Kant Essay Morality appears to us as a concrete term which is underscored by certain rational assumptions about the universe. And yet, our own experience tells us that that which one considers to be vice may, to another, be seen as virtue. The reverse may also apply. Thus, it is rather difficult to reconcile that which does in fact define our cause for moral behavior, though all figures of importance to the historical discourse on philosophy have ventured a framework. The 18th century in particular would witness a flurry of activity, with the latter generation of the Enlightenment Era providing a spirited exchange across decades of literature on that which inspires moral behavior. In our investigation here of the various possible lenses through which to understand morality, consideration of German theologian Immanuel Kant’s 1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals provides basic understanding for the discussion of morality from the normative perspective. Such is to say that Kant’s will be the most rigid, socially constrained and dangerous of understandings, but nonetheless, totally unique in its orientation and provisions for its time and place. At the center of Kant’s argument is the premise that the same reason which applies to the empirical nature of scientific discourse must rationally apply in the same way to ethical discourse. His perspective toward scientific certainty would mark a unique and original bridging of worlds between the corporeal and the ideological. Accordingly, Kant contends that â€Å"physics will have its empirical part, but it will also have a rational one; and likewise ethics – although here the empirical part might be called specifically practical anthropology, while the rational part might properly be called morals. † (Kant, 20) To Kant, previous ideals on ethical autonomy are threatening to social order, representing the opportunity for the individual to devise his own ethical parameters. The rationality of scientific practicality denotes, to Kant, instead a heteronomous orientation whereby there is a connective tissue of ethicality common to all men and women, restraining and directing behaviors. Kant defines autonomy as the ability to act based on one’s own volition. Heteronomy, on the other hand, is a common set of social forces inclining individuals to tend toward common motives and common actions. Accordingly, Kant lays out a concise framework for justice, admonishing that â€Å"the categorical imperative, which declares the action to be objectively necessary without referring to any end in view. . . . holds as an apodictic practical principle. † (Kant, p. 18) The ‘categorical imperative’ to which Kant refers is foundational to the normative theory suggesting that there is some immutable force associated with our conception and actualization of the idea of ‘good’ or ‘evil. ’ It inclines us to understanding that the means by which we behave are inherently informed by our commitment to a single, shared and unchanging idea about what is right. To commit to this idea is practical reason and to fail to make this commitment is irrational, which allows Kant to propose that such a positive correlation could be observed between rationality and morality. . This contrasts the idea of utilitarianism, which proposes that all situations demand a certain degree of pragmatism with respect to behavior. This throws into chaos the moral presuppositions of Kant, with such thinkers as Bentham and Mill coming to the fore of the discussion. In utilitarian philosophy, it is imperative that morality be channeled through an understanding of context and the nuances of society human interaction. By contrast to this view of morality, Kant provides deep ideological refusal for what he might argue is mere ethical laxity. Kant presents this argument that moral order is impossible to define without permanent standards that are shaped by man’s dignity, denoting therefore that it is only reasonable to act in cooperation with this conception for one’s own self-preservation. If Kant’s points are to be assimilated when adopting a moral stance which is consistent with man’s dignity, such absolute terms are inevitably defined by dominant social structures, bringing us to the application of a normative theoretical structure. The inextricable relationship which theology and morality have shared throughout history tends to have a tangible impact on the way these hegemonic standards are defined. And Kant, rejects any flexibility outright, however. Beyond its deviation from his established disposition toward moral absolutes, such variation violates Kant’s maxim about man as an end rather than a means. Man is to be the motive for moral acts, with his dignity defining right and wrong. Indeed, as he pointedly phrases it, â€Å"the laws of morality are laws according to which everything ought to happen; they allow for conditions under which what ought to happen doesn’t happen. † (Kant, 1) To my view, this demonstrates Kant’s approach to be both unrealistic and unattractive to the nuance and flexibility of human social systems and individual ideological orientations. Absent of these characteristics, ethicality becomes an empty term and morality a weapon against minority ideologies. Works Cited: Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Jonathan Bennett. Preferred language style: English(U. S. ) A. Explain the originality uniqueness of Kants ethical theory by:1)explaining kants general critcism of previous ethical theories 2)defining how kant distinguishes between autonomy heterononmy 3)explaining kants formulation of the `catergorical imperative. ` 4)explaining how adherence to the categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice. B. Reflect on Kants ethical theory by:1)supporting a position on how kants theory on ethical decision making is correct or incorrect with personal thought. 2)supporting your position with evidence from the text

The Immaturity of Professor Higgins in Pygmalion :: George Bernard Shaw Pygmalion Essays

The Immaturity of Professor Higgins in Pygmalion Professor Higgins is seen throughout Pygmalion as a very rude man. While one may expect a well educated man, such as Higgins, to be a gentleman, he is far from it. Higgins believes that how you treated someone is not important, as long as you treat everyone equally. The great secret, Eliza, is not having bad manners or good manners or any other particular sort of manners, but having the same manner for all human souls: in short, behaving as if you were in Heaven, where there are no third- class carriages, and one soul is as good as another. -Higgins, Act V Pygmalion. Higgins presents this theory to Eliza, in hope of justifying his treatment of her. This theory would be fine IF Higgins himself lived by it. Henry Higgins, however, lives by a variety of variations of this philosophy. It is easily seen how Higgins follows this theory. He is consistently rude towards Eliza, Mrs. Pearce, and his mother. His manner is the same to each of them, in accordance to his philosophy. However the Higgins we see at the parties and in good times with Pickering is well mannered. This apparent discrepancy between Higgins' actions and his word, may not exist, depending on the interpretation of this theory. There are two possible translations of Higgins' philosophy. It can be viewed as treating everyone the same all of the time or treating everyone equally at a particular time. It is obvious that Higgins does not treat everyone equally all of the time, as witnessed by his actions when he is in "one of his states" (as Mrs. Higgins' parlor maid calls it). The Higgins that we see in Mrs. Higgins' parlor is not the same Higgins we see at the parties. When in "the state" Henry Higgins wanders aimlessly around the parlor, irrationally moving from chair to chair, highly unlike the calm Professor Higgins we see at the ball. Higgins does not believe that a person should have the same manner towards everyone all of the time, but that a person should treat everyone equally at a given time (or in a certain situation). When he is in "one of those states" his manner is the

Differences between Northern Renaissance Art and Italian Renaissance Art Essay

?There are many differences between Northern renaissance art and Italian renaissance art. They are quite different. While Italian renaissance art tended to show the body in an idealistic way, Northern renaissance art hid the body. The art was very realistic, but drapery hid the body in a medieval fashion. That makes one major difference between the two: Italian was classical and Northern was medieval. Northern art had an immense amount of symbols in it. A good example of Northern art is the Merode Altarpiece, painted by Robert Campin in 1425-1428. In this piece, there is an incredible amount of symbolism, it is painted in a medieval style (drapery hides the body, etc. ), there’s a tremendous amount of detail put into it, and perhaps one of the most defining features of it is that it has got the patron in it. Since it was commissioned by someone besides the church, they wanted to be put in the piece of art that they paid to be painted. The patrons of the altarpiece appear on the far left side, as if they were part of the scene itself. Now we have Italian renaissance art. Some defining characteristics of it are that it is very classical (drapery tends to cling to the body, revealing the perfection of all the idealized bodies), they used plenty of linear perspective (whereas Northern art was more medieval, so they didn’t much care for that), they liked using illusions in their work, and they didn’t have patrons in their work because the church usually commissioned all the art. Botticelli’s Birth of Venus is a good example of Italian renaissance art. It not only has tons of drapery clinging to the female’s bodies, but it also has a nude person, common in classical art. This piece shows no particular patron, and so we can assume that it was commissioned by the church. One work of art commissioned by a patron is the Merode Altarpiece. Since this is a triptych, it has three panels. The patrons, that are identifiable as bourgeoisie from nearby Mechelen, appear in the left panel (the female donor and the servant in that panel appear to have been added later by a different painter once it was completed). Since the patrons wanted to be in it, it had to be modified from the original. A peculiar example of patrons being in a work of Italian renaissance art is the Adoration of the Magi, painted by Sandro Botticelli in 1476, and commissioned by the Medici family. The Medici family was a pretty huge deal back then. Therefore, if they wanted to be in a painting, they would be in a painting. Botticelli painted many members of this high-class family in this work of Italian renaissance art. Yet another example of patrons in a work of art is Hugo van der Goes’s Portinari Altarpiece, painted in 1475. It is another triptych, so it is divided in three. The difference between this one and the earlier one is that instead of having the patrons on just one side, they are on both sides of the piece, as if they were watching it. It is very medieval. The patrons in this seem to almost be a part of what is happening, but they don’t seem connected.

Analysis Of The Movie The Clansman - 1720 Words

The media often paints a picture of certain groups that may not be accurate for example, African Americans in the media are portrayed as criminals, drug addicts, or misogynist which also includes African American women are viewed as abrasive and promiscuous. While there are millions of responsible and respectable African Americans. They are not celebrated in the media. What the community sees are instead are thing in movies and on TV. This changes the general perception of African Americans and cause people to assume they are violent and are a burdened to society. During the pinnacle of segregation through the 1900s, African Americans were rarely portrayed on screen and when they were portrayed in satirical ways, it was with white actors in blackface. This is a great example of the misrepresentation of an entire community by those in power. In February 1915, a movie was released called birth of a nation which was based on Thomas Dixon Jr. novel the clansman. The film depicts the Ku K lux Klan as heroes and the villains were portrayed by white actors in black face. The film was basically trying to justify racism and imply that the white hooded, figures where protecting the white race because African males were trying to sexually ravage the white women this portrayal of African American male was known as a bucks. Despite the very clear prejudice in the film it was a major success and was the first ever major motion picture shown in the White House toShow MoreRelatedHow Birth Of A Nation Reinforced Antebellum Stereotypes About African Americans1564 Words   |  7 PagesHow Birth of a Nation reinforced Antebellum Stereotypes about African-Americans In the early 1900s, the movie industry in America developed the atmosphere filled with racial and political medium, which later became a propaganda tool for selling of brute caricature. Many will recognize the films titled Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, which was very historical since its technological innovation embraced or portrayed all the anti-Black caricatures, and other brutes. Sing Griffin was a Kentuckian