Kant depicts logic as being purely formal. Logic only deals with itself and not with any other object. Also, logic is pure because it does not depend on circumstances or experiences to be justifiable. Physics and ethics differ from logic because they deal with particular objects. Physics deals with the laws of nature while ethics deals with the laws of moral principles. Physics and ethics can also be empirical and non-empirical. The non-empirical part of physics deals with the concept of time and space while the empirical part deals with physical laws. Kant proceeds to encourage the need for a special sort of inquiry that he called the "Metaphysics of Morals." Kant states "That there must be such a philosophy is evident from the common idea of duty and of moral laws." The content of the moral law should not vary according to certain circumstances. Kant's purpose in writing Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is to set up a foundation for moral laws. He tries to establish "pure" moral philosophy by using ethics to find the "supreme principle of morality." Kant's goal is to develop a clear understanding of moral principles.
Although Kant strives to find "pure" moral philosophy, it is almost impossible to think of an action that is purely moral. Everything we do is for the sake of something else, whether is it for someone else or for ourselves. All actions, or experiences, come from some sort of motivational factor. These experiences depend on circumstances, while Kant argues that pure moral philosophy is independent of all situations.
I disagree with your last paragraph. Everything is not done for the sake of something else, because if so, then people would go about their life looking for rewards for every action that they do. People who give to charity give to charity because its the right thing to do, not to get attention or look upon as a good citizen. Most things are done for the sake of something else but not all!
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your last paragraph. Everything is not done for the sake of something else, because if so, then people would go about their life looking for rewards for every action that they do. People who give to charity give to charity because its the right thing to do, not to get attention or look upon as a good citizen. Most things are done for the sake of something else but not all!
ReplyDeleteEric, I beg to differ because if you are giving to charity, then you are doing it because it benefits someone else. You can still give to things that don't benefit you and it is still done for the sake of something else. I believe that even though you aren't doing something for yourself and you're doing something good for someone else then if is done for the sake of something else. Also, doing something good for the sake of something else doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a reward for it. It just means you're doing it because it bring good benefits for something.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, and I can't seem to make up my mind about what to think of that at paragraph. I partially agree with it because it does a lot to explain the motives behind human actions. If we don't have a motive we will never act,so at some point of tracing back the 'for the sake ofs' we have to have an original thought or purpose. However the true question to be asked is what is that origina motive..
ReplyDeleteEric, I like how you broke down Kant's ideas, but I will have to disagree with your last paragraph. Most actions from a different point of view can be considered "for the sake of something else." However, there are some actions in which you can do something just because or it's morally good. For example, I could give a homeless guy ten dollars for no reason at all and expect nothing back in return. Since I'm a rational person and can not foresee the future I have no idea what the result would be of the situation. That's just a different view of how I see it, but great post with explaining the ideas.
ReplyDelete