Can you understand this?

[ruddy]

Please also tell me if you have heard anything about Immanuel Kant before.


Immanuel Kant was an 18th century German philosopher. Kant believed that morality co-existed with man's ability reason. As opposed to "theoretical reason", which covered aspects such as maths and logic, Kant believed that it was our "practical reason" which would be the basis for discovering moral truth. Whilst animals are dictated by their instincts and desires, as humans we have the capacity to think and deliberate and choose the morally right thing to do. "Moral philosophy... when applied to man... gives laws a priori to him as a rational being." This term 'a priori' is Latin for 'what comes before' and indicates that Kant was a deontologist. In other words, he believed it is not the consequences of the action that make it right or wrong, but the motives of the person who carries out the action. As a result, Kant endeavoured to find a practical system by which one could establish the ethicality an action prior to carrying out the deed itself. Immanuel Kant was a theist and believed in a God as the definite entity creating the basis for our moral values. "There was something whose existence has in itself an absolute worth, something which, being an end in itself, could be a source of definite laws." However, he was evidently unsatisfied with the ambiguity of the moral systems of the day, saying "let it not be thought that the common 'quod tibi non vis fiery, etc' could serve here as the rule or principle." What Kant is explaining here is that the commonly accepted 'Golden Rule' is in reality illogical, since "on this principle the criminal might argue against the judge who punishes him."

[burt]

blah blah blah A. No