What would Immanuel Kant do?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m studying Immanuel Kant’s *Critique of Practical Reason * (1788) in my ethics class. Because it’s a summer course, I get one 1 & 1/2 hour lecture to help me understand Kant’s theory of practical reason, and bing I have a exam on him next week. Help!

These are some of the things I think (big emphasis on think) I understand:

-Everybody has a goodwill, and it is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
-You must live in harmony with reason.
-Reason leads you to do the right thing, which does not necessarily lead to your happiness (which really is irrelevant).
-Your intentions and your actions are all that matter. Consequences are irrelevant as long as you have done the right thing, and done your duties for the right reasons.
-Doing the right thing is the only way be a moral person.
-You must respect people’s dignity, for the right reasons.
-If you are irrational, you are not part of the human, moral community.
-If you commit a crime, it is my moral duty to punish you. Your rehabilitation is irrelevant.

Okay. Breath.

Now what I found most helpful where examples given in the text and in class concerning what Kant would do, or tell you to do, in said situation. Such as:

-If an infant were falling from somewhere, if I jump up and save the baby either to please myself or to make the parents happy, that is not a moral act. I must first, before faced with the situation, think about if saving the baby were the right thing to do, determine that it is, and be able to universalize it. If I have done this thinking, and I am then faced with the situation and I act by saving the baby purely because this is the right thing to do, then I have committed a moral act.

-I own a store. I price things fairly, simply because I have thought, determined, and universalized that this is the right thing to do. Not because I love my customers, or because I want to make them happy for their own sake, or my own selfish purposes.

-You gouge out my eye. Therefore, it is my duty to gouge out your’s because you must be punished. Whether this keeps you from gouging out other peoples’ eyes is irrelevant.

Whew.

So I ask you, am I on the right track? Could you provide other examples of what Kant would do in different scenarios?

Many thanks.

2

What is the factual question? You won’t get anything other than opinions of what Kant would say unless you dig him up and ask him yourself. I think the mods may want to move this thread. This also sounds a lot like a “do my homework” question.

3

I hear he was a real p*ssant who was very rarely stable.

What about Heidegger?

4

Oops… I think Padeye is right. I do want opinions. So sorry.

(and I am doing my homework, but I find discussion very, very helpful. Plus my teacher isn’t available over the weekend.)

5

I can’t answer your question, but I can make one remark that may make you feel better.
No one can fully understand Kant with only a week to study him. His philosophy is a wonderful chew toy for the most powerful of minds to nibble on. You are probably feeling wholly overwhelmed by trying to comprehend him. Don’t feel bad. It happens to everyone who tries to know Kant.

6

Heidegger? Heidegger was a boozy begar who could drink you under the table!

But what about Hume?

7

David Hume could out-consume Willhelm Friedrich Hegel.

But what about Wittgenstein?

8

Oh, I have opinions :smiley: Bear in mind I’m not a philosophy major but I do have some issues with your conclustions.

I basically agree but I don’t think it’s so complex. If you are faced with an emergency and a danger if you take action and you do so because it’s the right thing you likely won’t have time to examine your motives.

Retail stores rarely operate in a vacuum free from ordinary econimic forces so I think this example is not much more than mental masturbation.

Your punishment seems to be more about revenge than mere punishment. Your original statment was that it was your moral duty only to punish. I’m not saying that punishment in kind is never appropriate but this may be a good place to look at motive to determine if this is a moral or ethical act. Your motive is only implied at best but would you consder an alternative punishment than mutilation to be appropriate?

9

RitzyRae

I have taught Kant to undergraduate students, seminary students and law students, and I would say that for someone who can studied Kant for the short you have, your grasp is exceedingly good.

I am a bit surprised that your professor started you with the Critique, and not Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. If you have time over the weekend, read that book. It is very short, but dense; on the other hand, you already understand the essentials of Kant’s moral philosophy.

In the Foundations, you will see why universalizability is so crucial to his building a rational theory of morality.

It is also well to see Kant in the context of someone like David Hume (even if Kant did not read Hume, Hume’s thoughts were in the philosophic air). Hume taught that morals were fundamentally emotional statements of approval. Kant wanted to show that there is a moral reality; his fight was at least partially against moral subjectivism.

Well, I see I am floating into my “Intro to Kant” lecture. I ought contain myself.

10

Off to IMHO.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator

11

My mom used to say, “Kant is a sluggard, too lazy to work.” Then again, her major was English, and not Philosophy. Franklin College, class of 1944.

12

I hated reading Kant. That’s all I’ve got.

13

But more importantly;

Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

What could Nietsche teach ya?

14

I disagree. I think this is a general question, and it’s “What hypothetical situations illustrate Kant’s philosophy as it’s generally understood.” When we move beoyond example everyone agrees on, and start speculating, it’d be IMHO or GD, but I’d hope there’'s room for some GQ.

(For that matter, I think I disagree that doing a ‘good deed’ because it makes you happy somehow invalidates it, but I don’t think I’m ready to argue with Kant yet.)

15

There’s nothing Nietsche couldn’t teach ya about the raising of the wrist.

What about Socrates?

16

Ooops. I misquoted Mom. It’s “…too lazy to try.”

17

Think. He could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel.

18

Yay! That makes me feel really rather good. And thanks for recommending Foundations. I find universalizability to be one of Kant’s better ideas.

Um, yes. I don’t really enjoy the fact that Kant leaves happiness out of the picture. I’m prolly a bit more of a utilitarian in that respect. Just like, I’m not hip to gouging peoples’ eyes out. Each theory has its pros and cons. :slight_smile:

19

:rolleyes: right…it’s been a while.

20

Actually, there’s nothing Immanuel Kant do.