[miss_tinytea_addict]

Hi
I have a seminar discussion tomorrow on Kant & Hegel and I could really do with someone giving me a sum up of either of these guys and their ideas in some form of english i can understand, would be a massive help thanks!!

[Afrotortina]

Urm I did a bit on Kant for A-Level, what kind of thing are you asking about? His views on ethics? My memory is a bit hazy from last year...

[miss_tinytea_addict]

(Original post by Afrotortina)
Urm I did a bit on Kant for A-Level, what kind of thing are you asking about? His views on ethics? My memory is a bit hazy from last year...

we're focusing more on analytic v synthetic truth and the catergorical imperative but i have no clue on either topics to be honest.

[Afrotortina]

I'm just getting out my notes...

[Antonia87]

Kant:

- influential Enlightenment thinker.
- has a universalistic, cosmoplitan view of the world.
- advocate of republicanism
- very concerned with human ethics
- keen on the idea of a federation of republics 'working for the common good'
- called for restraints on warfare and believed war would eventually disappear
- opposed to nationalism
- wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Perpetual Peace"

My knowledge on Hegel is a bit shaky, sorry.

[miss_tinytea_addict]

(Original post by Antonia87)
Kant:

- influential Enlightenment thinker.
- has a universalistic, cosmoplitan view of the world.
- advocate of republicanism
- very concerned with human ethics
- keen on the idea of a federation of republics 'working for the common good'
- called for restraints on warfare and believed war would eventually disappear
- opposed to nationalism
- wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Perpetual Peace"

My knowledge on Hegel is a bit shaky, sorry.

th's ok this helps thanks

[miss_tinytea_addict]

(Original post by Afrotortina)
I'm just getting out my notes...

thank you x

[Bubbles*de*Milo]

Really basic but the categorical imperative means you judge an action by its morality, not by its results.

The end result/conclusion is irrelevant, the morality comes from the intention of the action itself.

Therefore; a murderer asks you the location of the person he wants to kill. The moral thing to do would be to tell the truth; it is immoral to lie. The act of murder is not your fault, it is the fault of the killer.

Kinda the opposite of Bentham's utilitarianism if that means anything at all.

[Afrotortina]

I was rambling a bit on my note, yours is more condensed He had a Lutheran Background,which focuses on intrinsic values than rules.

Categorical Imperiatvie it's absolute and focuses on the act, rather than the consequences-
1) Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will it should become a universal law (I.e. only do actions where the world will work/ be a better place if EVERYONE does it e.g. do not kill, do not lie.
2) Treat other humans as an end to themselves, not as a means to an end (e.g. do not lie to someone to become rich)

the Hypothetical impertive is conditional and focuses on the consequences e.g. use contraception to avoid pregnacies... but he dismisses this.


He also believed in 2 Realsm: Noumenal (which humans can access through reason and where we know about God) and phenomenal where we live and is known to us by our senses, like animals. Therefore, Kant uses analytical arguments to prove God, as we can't know him synthetically.

On an extra note, Aristotle would not agree with Kant, as Kant believed in "Duty for Duty's sake" rather than doing it because they enjoy being good. Aristotle aruged "Nobody would call a man just if he does not enjoyy acting justly" BUT it gives people automony to think for themselves, rather than being dictacted by the church (which Kant HATEDE>) Hope this helps, sorry about ramblings and typing, i get a bit excited!!

[bigmo7]

(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Really basic but the categorical imperative means you judge an action by its morality, not by its results.

The end result/conclusion is irrelevant, the morality comes from the intention of the action itself.

Therefore; a murderer asks you the location of the person he wants to kill. The moral thing to do would be to tell the truth; it is immoral to lie. The act of murder is not your fault, it is the fault of the killer.

Kinda the opposite of Bentham's utilitarianism if that means anything at all.

But how do you know that he wants to kill that person? (Or does he tell you?)

[Bubbles*de*Milo]

(Original post by bigmo7)
But how do you know that he wants to kill that person? (Or does he tell you?)

If you know or don't know is 100% irrelevant.

Your action = tell the truth or lie
Your action = what is judged. The result is irrelevant.

[Jangrafess]

(Original post by bigmo7)
But how do you know that he wants to kill that person? (Or does he tell you?)

Doesn't matter to Kant. You don't lie regardless of the circumstances.

What do you want to know about Hegel, OP? There's a hell of a lot about him to talk about... I mainly know his theological philosophy, don't do anything else till third year and I find him far too dull to read for pleasure.

[miss_tinytea_addict]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
Doesn't matter to Kant. You don't lie regardless of the circumstances.

What do you want to know about Hegel, OP? There's a hell of a lot about him to talk about... I mainly know his theological philosophy, don't do anything else till third year and I find him far too dull to read for pleasure.

anything you got on his thesis/anti-theseis/synthesis or dialect of history would be great xx