bil0068300
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
So I’ve been trying to do this essay for days I feel like I know so much about Kant but I still cannot figure out if he would agree or disagree with the statement “we cannot universalise our morals” the categorical imperative says we should all follow a maxim but then autonomy says we should not be influenced by others only ourselves so I’m truly confused by these contrasting ideas. Can someone please help my and just clarify if Kant would agree or disagree with the statement “we cannot universalise our morals
0
reply
zeddiful42
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Because (1) Kant is a massive objectivist (ie all morality is objective and there can be no subjectivity or recourse to considering different circumstances changing what we should do in X or Y situation) and (2) we need to consider the objective and theoretical Kingdom of Ends under the Categorical Imperative, I think Kant would say we CAN universalise our morals. The Kingdom of Ends would surely come to 1 decision and 1 decision alone - this is one we should be following, Kant would argue.
I don't think that autonomy is a barrier/contrasting idea to this reading of Kant: autonomy could be in favour of it - we mustn't be distracted from the Kingdom of Ends and deontology (the inherent good/bad morality of an act rather than recourse to subjectivism). Essentially, autonomy means that we must follow a perfect, a priori and objective morality regardless of what others would say, so that's a 3rd (3) point in favour of Kant thinking we can universalise our morals.
1
reply
bil0068300
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by zeddiful42)
Because (1) Kant is a massive objectivist (ie all morality is objective and there can be no subjectivity or recourse to considering different circumstances changing what we should do in X or Y situation) and (2) we need to consider the objective and theoretical Kingdom of Ends under the Categorical Imperative, I think Kant would say we CAN universalise our morals. The Kingdom of Ends would surely come to 1 decision and 1 decision alone - this is one we should be following, Kant would argue.
I don't think that autonomy is a barrier/contrasting idea to this reading of Kant: autonomy could be in favour of it - we mustn't be distracted from the Kingdom of Ends and deontology (the inherent good/bad morality of an act rather than recourse to subjectivism). Essentially, autonomy means that we must follow a perfect, a priori and objective morality regardless of what others would say, so that's a 3rd (3) point in favour of Kant thinking we can universalise our morals.
(Original post by zeddiful42)
Because (1) Kant is a massive objectivist (ie all morality is objective and there can be no subjectivity or recourse to considering different circumstances changing what we should do in X or Y situation) and (2) we need to consider the objective and theoretical Kingdom of Ends under the Categorical Imperative, I think Kant would say we CAN universalise our morals. The Kingdom of Ends would surely come to 1 decision and 1 decision alone - this is one we should be following, Kant would argue.
I don't think that autonomy is a barrier/contrasting idea to this reading of Kant: autonomy could be in favour of it - we mustn't be distracted from the Kingdom of Ends and deontology (the inherent good/bad morality of an act rather than recourse to subjectivism). Essentially, autonomy means that we must follow a perfect, a priori and objective morality regardless of what others would say, so that's a 3rd (3) point in favour of Kant thinking we can universalise our morals.
You are a godsend that makes so much sense thank you so much!
1
reply
CommanderKeen
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
The point of the categorical imperative is precisely that it needs to be universalised: every reasonable person acting according to that reason should come to the same objective conclusion. The rule-of-thumb test for a Kantian deontological principle is whether it can be held up as universal or not, as Kant himself specifically states in the Groundwork:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (193)
58.13%
I don't have everything I need (139)
41.87%

Watched Threads

View All