Philosophy

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Instructor’s Name

Date

Reason and moral virtue according to Immanuel Kant

Kant set the foundation for his Moral philosophy on three main writings: Critique of Practical Reason, Metaphysics of Morals, and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Emmanuel Kant, in the Groundwork, used a technique which involved attempting to change human’s daily, apparent, rational knowledge of morality into idealistic knowledge. His latter two writings were based on a technique of using sensible reason that is grounded only on things about which rationale can tell us as opposed to obtaining any principles from past experience in getting to conclusions that are able to be applied to the world experience.

He is renowned for his philosophy that there is a solitary moral responsibility. He referred to this theory as Categorical Imperative, which is generated from the idea of responsibility. He defines the requirements of the moral law as definite imperatives, which are values that are fundamentally valid. These principles are superior in and of themselves. According to him, these principles ought to be observed in their entirety, and by all, circumstances as well conditions if human character and conduct is to follw the moral law. “From these principles all our moral duties and obligations are obtained or created, and by which all moral duties can be evaluated”. He also argues that the moral means as well as outcomes can be applied to these principles, that reasoning humans can seek particular ends using the most proper means. “The moral law is a principle of reason itself. It is not based on dependent facts about the world, including what could make us happy, but to act upon the moral law that has no other intention or goal apart from worthiness of being happy. Moral obligation only applies to rational (reason) agents”. He supposed that in case an act is performed with the intention of responsibility, then it lacks moral worth. Instead, any action ought to have absolute goal (reason) driving it or the act would lack meaning. According to him, the outcome of an action is not the most significant aspect of an action, rather it is how an individual feels while doing the act that value is attached to the outcome of the action.

J.S. Mill’s understanding of human nature (for example, individuality) and rationality in his approach to liberty

According to John S. Mills, logic characterizes human nature. An individual behaves in a specific manner as directed by reason. “The human nature is driven by reason, which overrides all other elements which could appear to be taking place in his life. On Liberty, Mills argues that the human has the sole right to conduct himself in a manner that he deems benefits him most, and should be free to conduct himself in that manner”. This forms the base for his utilitarianism perspective, which argues that human nature is one that aims at giving him optimum benefits. In such a way, an individual is the sovereign.

Mills argues that individuality is a prerequisite to attaining higher pleasures. According to him individuality has an inalienable, indivisible and inherent value to humanity. It is individuality which thrive the human to attaining higher pleasures. Mills believes that a society must try to promote individuality since it is a pre-condition for diversity and creativity in human nature. According to him, conformity is disastrous. He believes that actions do not matter so much. Instead, he argues that the person or individual behind the action together with the action are valuable. According to him it really of significance, not only what people do, but also what cadre or types of men they are that do the action.

On rationality, Mills argues that man is naturally rational. He asserts that reason is the main element that shapes and drives an individual. “Man is hence naturally rational and is guided by reason. In this sense therefore, there should be limited control on an individual by other surrounding individuals, society or a government”.

How John Rawls’ Theory of Justice carry forward the modern social contract theory while also drawing on Kant.

John Rawls is basically recognized for his philosophy of “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls’ theory of Justice establishes a framework which elucidates the importance, in a community presumed to comprise of liberal and equal citizens, of individual as well as political freedoms, of equal chance, and supportive strategies that promote the needs of the more as well as the less privileged and vulnerable individuals in a society or citizenry.

Rawls’ idea of righteousness is an associational conception. It primarily centers on relationships between individual members of an association. He is basically concerned with the political association referred to as the modern nation-state. Rawls’ theory of Justice is founded on the relationships between individuals within an association. “The theory urges us make a society which is a fair system of cooperation and good relations over time. The relationships referred to by the theory are those of citizenship, which is interaction of citizens within the primary structure of society. This is a structure in which individuals only enter by birth and exit only by death”.

Rawls theory of Justice develops principles of justice that are vital in governing a modern social order based on the theory of social contract. This is basically how Rawls’ Theory of Justice carries forward Modern Social Contract Theory. Moreover, one of the most revisited components on Rawls’ perspective of Justice as Fairness according to his theory is his ‘designing’ device referred to as Original Position. “The Original Position has always been compared to the ‘state of nature’ or rather pre-political state of humanity that was significant in philosophies of earlier Modern Social Contract philosophers”. In reference to ideas of political thinkers including Kant, Hobbes, Locke among others, so as to conceptualize political duty, one must, firstly, understand what human societies were like prior to the conception of ordered societies under laws as well as governments, and in that case, ask himself what basis would have driven individuals to establish an ordered society. Lastly, one should try to know what values individuals in the pre-political state could have selected to control their relations in a community under set law system and government. Rawls’ Theory of Justice hence carry forward Modern Social Contract Theory, which according to Kant, the sovereignty lies with the people and the leaders are expected to do justice to the citizens by achieving what they are expected of them according to law

Bibliography

Gert, Bernard. Morality Its Nature and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=138257>.

Hellsten, Sirkku. In Defense of Moral Individualism. Helsinki: Univ, 1997.

Mill, John Stuart, and Stefan Collini. On Liberty. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1995.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=28 2760>.

Rawls, John, and Erin Kelly. Justice As Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap, 2001.

Sullivan, Roger J. Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1989.