INTRODUCTION
The form of writings that Kant writes do not portray full explanation on the subject of discussion in a clear straight forward way. In this particular writing-The Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant fails to explain the significant and major differences in his personal claims. The subject of this article has not been assigned a clear distinction between empirical and a priori knowledge of the same (R. J. 1994). In place of famous and ancient philosophers, Kant uses principle of charity to win people’s general perception about ethics hence the method of interpretation can be described as very weak.
The format Kant uses to elaborate on his points about intellectual history and contradictions can be described as a duplicate. In this position, Kant fails to be original and avoid explaining so many details about the contradictions. In this account, I may argue that, our moral actions are defined by the determination of the reason behind human beings as rational beings. In my view, I suppose morality should be recognized universally by all decent people with a reasonable stand. Therefore, if Kant had addressed the issue of morality in a matter presentable to the society, the rate of endorsement would be higher than the current state of recognition. In line with this, I have decided to point out some significant critiques of the same.
In addition to this, Kant describes ethic as being rational. I totally disagree with him. He misused the term rationality and its general application in relation to ethics. In his article, he describes the link between ethic and rationality and tries to show that the two are related. The term ethic can only apply when talking about human beings. In this view, I totally get lost on what he was trying to explain. Ethic can only exist in human beings.
In addition to this, Kant fails to establish an analogous to his priorities. In his article, he fails to recognize that in all cases, experience has no any established connection in his priorities. In addition to this, Kant does not use the term necessity in its correct form when relating to ethics. I further disagree with him completely in the essence that in a particular occasion, he wrote that “an act is necessary”which openly indicates that he failed to establish the correct use of the term necessity. If the action was actually taking place, I would have agreed with him but on this case, I completely disagree.
In another instance, he wrote something to do with assigning duties to “oneself” which in my argument; it does not make sense in any possible way (R. J. 1994). When Kant based his ideas on distinction between posterior and prior ethics, he failed to recognize that he was linking it to ethics which is wrong. In reference to his article, it leaves so many unanswered questions on whether he based his ethics depending on the experience from human beings or otherwise. In real sense, founding ethics to real life human experience can never be the case.
According to his published article, Kant thinks of himself acting in accordance to the forced external stimuli. He then terms his actions as “the act of free will” which is completely out of meaning. When an individual thinks of himself acting effectively in response to the external stimuli, then he should not call his actions the act of his will. According to Kant, he argued that without ethical and defense work together. The main function of the same was to give laws about what ought to happen even if it has never happened before (Grenberg, 2005). He believed that certain types of action such as murder, lying and theft were categorically prohibited even if the case would bring joy than the alternative. He suggested that there are questions that bind one from violating the laws. First question to ask ourselves would be, does our action respects others goal or is of my own benefits? However I have objections, according to Aristotle, human soul is alienated into three parts. The reasoning part which is barely small to many people, the part governed by the reasoning and lastly the part that resist reasoning. There human being are not equal.
Reasoning varies relatively depending with a person. Therefore one might act different from one another; hence I conclude that other answers are not often correct since decision making varies with person. Kant also believes that ethics is about essentials for the will or laws. This is contrary in our world. I believe that ethics rests on religious foundation where one is informed about good and bad and reminded of God’s commandments (Grenberg, 2005). We ought to make sense in the context of rewards and punishment. Therefore, the commands are conditioned. In addition, he wrote that banished eudaimonism is from ethics and contrary to many people. I believe that ethics are command-centered and are based on the representative’s interest.
One of the positive facts of universal law hood on the part of any moral imperative takes place when we eliminate some of their conditions of applicability; nothing is left in them except their universal law hood. According to Immanuel Kant, associate action is virtuously laudable and if it is done out of respect for the ethical law, as prescribed by sensible reason can lead to self-destruction. For Kant, the emotions don't seem to be a reliable guide for ethical action as a result of the change and do not appear to be stable like the guiding star of reason. One would possibly argue that "respect" may be a reasonable feeling; however, he insists that respect is totally different than worry (Grenberg, 2005).
Many modern ethical theorists and I included, criticize Immanuel Kant for failing to relinquish correct owing to emotions. Feminist philosophers, as an example, argue that Kant's adherence to pure reason implies that non-public relationships with friends and family which are varieties of emotional attachments are not vital for morality. So, if I see my mother and an entire intruder drown, Immanuel Kant is unable to elucidate why I’d wish to avoid wasting my mother, and he would be unable to argue that it'd be correct on behalf of me to try to thus.
According to Kant he believes that moral motive has to be real in every human experience. Also human can be impacted with empirical motives but Kant does not know about rational being therefore making the basis of Kantian ethics lack real substance of value. So, the criticism avails itself when Kant's adherence to pure sensible reason overlooks the importance of feeling in ethical expertise and life in generally, particularly the one that involves ethical significance of our personal relationships with our friends and family (Grenberg, 2005).
There is incomplete information of associate in nurture in Kant’s argument about object. For him, perception isn't information as a result of it's not thought. In general, Immanuel Kant claimed that perception is mere sensation. In accordance with Kant's claim, non-human animals wouldn't be ready to understand objects. Animals would solely understand impressions on their sense organs that Immanuel Kant erroneously referred to as perception. Immanuel Kant had mistakenly declared that full, perceived objects, do not produce mere sensations. (Grenberg, 2005). However, perception is intellectual and could be a product of the understanding. If animals don't have understanding, in accordance with Immanuel Kant, then they need solely Sensation, which, Schopenhauer claimed, offers solely raw sense knowledge, not perceived objects.
CONCLUSION
In a concluding remark, it would be my wish that I have argued to the highest degree of my reasoning. I have undermined each and every step in deep concentration with clear illustrations (R. J. 1994). The argument behind my critique can be analyzed in simple structured form in the following ways: He argues that ethics can be rational. In addition to this, he fails to establish an analogous to his priorities. Furthermore, he tries to show that morality is not consequentialism. However, on my opposing side and criticizing on the same, I have explained that ethics should not be linked to rationalism but instead human beings should play that part. Therefore, the work of Kant can be considered as less relevant as it contains a lot critiques than its merits to the society. In his article, the level of ignorance is so high and it has lost its originality taste of a philosopher.
References
Grenberg, J. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility: A story of dependence, corruption and virtue. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, R. J. (1994). An introduction to Kant's ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
