Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel kant philosophical analysis
Immanuel kant philosophical analysis
Essay On Kant
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel kant philosophical analysis
A question that has plagued philosophers is whether humans are naturally good or evil. Various historical circumstances have show that there is no definitive answer and there is no consensus answer amongst philosophers. Some philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, contend that human nature is indeed good. Kant is believes that an understanding of the human rational is essential to proving that humans are naturally good. Kant explains that humans are the only creature on earth that have reason and that our rational separates us from the other creatures of Earth. This reason enables us to distinguish what is moral and what immoral. Our reason means that we have a duty to follow what is morally correct. Kant elucidates, “to be beneficent where one …show more content…
Hobbs view towards human nature is the opposite of Kant’s view. Hobbs explains that humans naturally, or in a state of nature, act without beneficence, or evilly. The state of nature is a way for Hobbs to describe how humans would act naturally if there were no society. For Hobbs, humans who inhabited this state of nature would be characterized as very irrational. Hobbs explains, “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Hobbs). Men in this state of nature would constantly be competing, in what Hobbs describes as “a perpetuating state of war” (Hobbs). This state of war is brought on by men’s natural diffidence towards each other, or their overall lack of trust for fellow man. This competition and diffidence both correlate with Hobbs sentiments explaining how men are irrational, in how they lack trust for each other and compete against each other. The competition and diffidence lead to glory, which in a state of nature is achieved usually through death of men. The competition arises from diffidence and the wants of men. When a man wants something, he will do anything to achieve it. Hobbs reveals, “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbs). Hobbs clarifies …show more content…
At first I did not fell guilt, but as time went on, and my reason came back to me, I did feel the pangs of regret. It is not one specific event, but rather a large compilation of misdoings. I call it my high school career. I was a poor student and I put very little effort into my work. Assignment by assignment, I gradually fell behind, but I never felt bad. Because of my work ethic, frankly, I go to Hofstra. I never realized how dormant my reason was until one night, at a party, I asked a girl where she would be attending college. She said Harvard and I replied Hofstra. “At least they sound the same” she remarked. I had never felt so embarrassed in my life. Hofstra is a decent university, but it’s only decent. Since that night I have felt endlessly guilty, as my reason returned and I realized I should have worked harder in high school. For a time I was doing morally wrong, by not working, without ever knowing it; but like Kant explained, I was out of “the loop”, as my reason had deserted me. But now, it has returned I now know my duty is to work hard to achieve
Are humans naturally good, or evil? Many people argue both ways. It has been argued for centuries, and many authors have written about it. One example of this is Samuel Clemens's, more commonly known as Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The book follows a young boy, named Huckleberry, and a runaway slave, named Jim, as they both run away. Huck runs away to escape being civilized, while Jim runs away from slavery. Together, they talk about life, philosophy, and friends. As they travel down the Mississippi River, both Huck and Jim learn various life lessons. In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck witnesses the depravity of human nature on his journey on the Mississippi River.
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
Through the progression of William Golding's Lord of the Flies and the article, “Are Humans Good or Evil” by Clancy Martin and Alan Strudler, a multitude of undeniable evidence is provided to prove that humans are in fact inherently wicked. In Lord of the Flies, a human being’s savage nature and primal instincts are effectively portrayed through the development of Jack, the lead hunter in a group that gets meat for the boys. Little Jack Merridew, who seems to be nothing but a naive and obnoxious chorister, becomes one of the most malicious and violent boys on the island. Jack's wilder side shows itself the most when he goes hunting. Making one his first kills brought such exhilaration, satisfaction, and pure bloodlust, that it drove him to insane limits,
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
Phillip Pullman, a British author, once wrote, “I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are”(goodreads.com). Pullman’s quotation on the actions of man being the source of good and evil closely relate to morality, principles regarding the distinction of right and wrong or a person’s values. The question of what human morality truly is has been pondered by philosophers, common folk, and writers for thousands of years. However, sometimes a person’s ethics are unclear; he or she are not wholly good or bad but, rather, morally ambiguous.
Are humans naturally good or evil? This age-old question dates back to as early as the Chinese Dynasty and is still being argued to this day. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were born cruel, that they began cheating others to benefit themselves. Whereas, John Locke believes that humans are born good and pure, but become evil based on experiences and obstacles in life. In my opinion, all humans are born good and become cruel based on their experiences. I feel this way because when you look at a new born baby, they are seeing the world for the first time, and although they are screaming and crying, they are pure. They do not want to do anyone any harm, and you do not wish to cause them any harm. The same goes for young, growing children
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
Thomas Hobbs and John Locke have two very opposing viewpoints on human nature. Locke believes that human nature is innately good; Hobbs thinks that human nature knows right from wrong, but is naturally evil and that no man is entirely “good”. Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of the classic novel The Scarlet Letter, believes that every man is innately good and Hawthorne shows that everyone has a natural good side by Hester’s complex character, Chillingworth’s actions and Dimmesdale’s selfless personality.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Confucius is known for stressing that human nature is intrinsically good. He stresses that human beings are born with the ability for differentiating between wrong and right. A person may not be aware from infancy which acts are tolerable and which acts are not, but all offspring feel shame, and once the children learn which deeds are bad or good, they have a normal tendency to consent of the former and criticize of the latter (Van and Bryan 27).
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.