Kant's Deontological Theory
The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is a reductio argument. The problem with this argument is that it treats existence as a first order property. Kant picked up on this flaw, and therefore criticizes the argument. Existence can not be a first order property. First order properties describe the object itself. !Existence does not add to an objects description, it can not be added to the concept of the thing. It just posits the existence of such a thing. Let us now take a more critical look at Kant's argument (some things will have to be stated again.) In the c . . .
Therefore, we achieve a kingdom in which we govern ourselves with our own laws, while at the same time governing everyone else. Again, it is the thought behind the action that counts. If we keep this in mind we see that the deontological theory tells us that the moral rightness of an action is determined independent of its consequences. The kingdom of ends can only be achieved if everyone follows the categorical imperative. If you take the Golden rule literally, you will treat others harshly so that you can be treated that way too. We are subjecting morality to our own beliefs, therefore making it something else. They say that the person who rejects the existence of God has not grasped the concept of God correctly because existence is part of the concept of God. In defining the good, it defines it in terms of happiness or pleasure. If we did treat the person as a means to an end, then we would not be following the categorical imperative. But does this apply to other intelligent animals, retarded people, or infants? Yes and no. Once you have the concept in your head, Kant says, your reas! on should lead you to act by those maxims which by you can at the same time will that they become universal laws. " Kant's argument makes perfect sense. Let us use a triangle to prove his point.
Common topics in this essay:
Morality Imperative, Kant Existence, , Act Rule, categorical imperative, concept morality, golden rule, universal law, ontological argument, existence property, deontological theory, universal laws, grasped concept, moral laws, kant's deontological theory, kant's categorical imperative, categorical imperative act, significant guiding action, imperative act according, |