4) Explain Kant’s moral theory briefly. Which actions are morally good and which

Question

4) Explain Kant’s moral theory briefly. Which actions are morally good and which actions are morally bad according to Kant? Give an example for each kind of action.

5) What is the ultimate good according to Aristotle? How can we attain that good?

6) What are the characteristic features of virtues according to Aristotle? State 3 examples of virtues and explain their common features.

7) Which actions are good and which actions are bad according to Aristotle? Give an example for each.

8) What is the ultimate good according to utilitarianism? Which actions are morally good and which actions are morally bad according to utilitarianism? Give an example of each. Questions about Kant’s Enlightenment

9) How does Kant define enlightenment? Do you think that it is a good definition? Why/Why not?

10) What does the individual need to have in order to attain enlightenment, according to Kant? Why do so many of the individuals remain unenlightened in his view? Do you agree with Kant? Why/Why not?

11) What does the society need to have in order to attain enlightenment, according to Kant? Do you agree with Kant? Why/Why not?

12) Why does Kant praise Frederick the Great? Which aspects of this ruler are praise-worthy according to Kant? Do you think that those are important qualities in a ruler?

13) Explain the distinction between private use of reason and public use of reason. Which one should never be restricted and which one may be restricted according to Kant?

14) Do you think that it is possible for someone, whose private use of reason is restricted, to be able to have complete freedom while using his reason publicly? Why/Why not? Explain your position with examples. Questions about Nietzsche

15) Explain how English psychologists account for the origin of good. Why does not Nietzsche find their account convincing?

16) Explain the distinction between “good and bad” and “good and evil”. Explain the relationship between these two moral systems: which moral value and which moral system comes first and which ones come later?

17) Explain the metaphors of lamb and the bird of prey. What do the metaphors of “birds of prey” and “lambs” signify? What does Nietzsche try to explain with these metaphors?

18) What is the role of resentment in the evolution of moral values? Explain who feels resentment towards whom and why.

19) What is “genetic fallacy”? Why do you think some philosophers criticize Nietzsche for committing this fallacy?

20) What are the differences between the aristocratic and priestly people? How do these characteristics influence the aristocratic moral values and the priestly moral values?

21) According to Nietzsche we do not see the battle between the master and the slave moralities any more. Why is that?

22) What does Nietzsche mean by the “spiritual vengeance” of the Jews? Questions about Popper

23) What is the demarcation problem? How does Popper solve this problem?

24) What does inductive skepticism mean?

25) Explain the distinction between inductive and deductive methods. Which one is logically valid?

Explanation / Answer

Question-4: Explain Kant’s moral theory briefly. Which actions are morally good and which actions are morally bad according to Kant? Give an example for each kind of action. Answer: Kant (1724–1804) argued that the principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. These standards were either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying one’s desires, as in Hobbes, or external rational principles that are discoverable by reason, as in Locke and Aquinas. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason reveals the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he also argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. At the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. It is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect. Kant’s analysis of the common moral concepts of “duty” and “good will” led him to believe that we are free and autonomous as long as morality, itself, is not an illusion. Yet in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant also tried to show that every event has a cause. Kant recognized that there seems to be a deep tension between these two claims: If causal determinism is true then, it seems, we cannot have the kind of freedom that morality presupposes, which is “a kind of causality” that “can be active, independently of alien causes determining it” (G 4:446). Kant thought that the only way to resolve this apparent conflict is to distinguish between phenomena, which is what we know through experience, and noumena, which we can consistently think but not know through experience. Our knowledge and understanding of the empirical world, Kant argued, can only arise within the limits of our perceptual and cognitive powers. We should not assume, however, that we know all that may be true about “things in themselves,” although we lack the “intellectual intuition” that would be needed to learn about such things. These distinctions allow us to resolve the “antinomy” about free will by interpreting the “thesis” that free will is possible as about noumena and the “antithesis” that every event has a cause as about phenomena. Morality thus presupposes that agents, in an incomprehensible “intelligible world,” are able to make things happen by their own free choices in a “sensible world” in which causal determinism is true.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 4
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.