The ancestor of classical German philosophy Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) during the early period of the activity dealt with issues of natural sciences much and made the hypothesis of the origin and developments of the solar system.
This philosophical system is the compromise between materialism and idealism. Materialistic tendencies in Kant's philosophy affect that he recognizes the existence of objective reality, things out of us. Kant teaches that there are the "transcendental objects" which are not depending on the learning subject. If Kant consistently carried out this look, it would come to materialism. But in contradiction with this materialistic view, the tendency of describing of the "transcendental objects" is not so common. In the other words, he acted as a supporter of agnosticism. The agnosticism leads it to idealism.
Kant's idealism is revealed in the form of an apriorism, the doctrine that basic provisions of any knowledge are aprioristic forms of mind.
The space and time, according to Kant, are not objective forms of existence of a matter, and only forms of human consciousness, aprioristic forms of sensual contemplation. The philosopher suggests the basic concepts and categories by means of which people learn the nature, but this he stands on the position of resolving issues in the context of aprioristic positions. So, he considered causality, not as objective communication, regularity of the nature, and an aprioristic form of a human mind.
All categories of mind as it is already noted above, Kant declared as aprioristic forms of consciousness. Idealistically, Kant presented also the theme of knowledge. According to his doctrine, the subject of knowledge is designed by human consciousness from a sensual material by means of aprioristic forms of mind.
Kant calls this subject designed by consciousness the nature. Formally, Kant recognizes that the knowledge about the subject is natural, but in essence it opposes the nature to the objective world.
In Kant's idealistic philosophy, there are also the valuable samples of dialectics. Kant's merit in the theory of knowledge consists in establishing the insufficiency of an analytical method for science and a post-twisted question of an informative role of synthesis in scientific research.
Kant rejected the look extended among metaphysicists as if the scientific method is reduced only to the analysis. The outstanding German philosopher protected the fruitful thought of the fundamental values of synthesis as the method of scientific knowledge.
Kant’s categorical imperative stands in contrast to the utilitarianism theory the supporters of which (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) idealized utility as a way of reaching happiness. Utility means happiness in its basic meaning, and this point of view is related to the theory of hedonism that originated in XIX-XX century.
The classical utilitarian is the ethical doctrine that is related to the extremely various ideological containing. Sometimes, it comprises elements without contradictions. Considerably, some contradictions are connected with that the content of the classical utilitarianism is formed during the correspondence and discussions between the founders of this theory – Jeremiah (Jeremy) Bentham and John Stewart Mill. Owing to this fact, historical and ethical standards of the theory of a classical utilitarian are inevitably comprised in theoretical positions of Bentham and Mill. There are many points to compare and argue with both of them and numerous researchers supported or denied Bentham’s and Mill's views. The factors of the understanding of the human nature, the essence of happiness and conditions of its achievements, the model of adoption of a moral decision, interpretation of the subject of "the greatest happiness" are crucial for discussions.
Utilitarian theory is closely related to the notion human happiness that leads to satisfying the needs of a human being. For example, hedonistic theory is common in psychology, as well. For instance, in the opinion of Aaker and Lee (2001), some people seek for pleasure, and others just avoid pain that means that until a person cares only about himself/herself, they do not need to care much about the possibility of negative. And if people are responsible for others, they may expect negatively and think much about preventing negative situations in life. The examples driven by the authors show two women who are buying two different cars: one woman buys a car to enjoy high speed driving, being careless of the safety; and another woman is purchasing a safe big car to feel safe and responsible for children, even if she drives alone, children should not be left without their mother.
With the help of an article by Aaker and Lee (2001) we can observe the difference between utilitarian and Kant’s theories. Utilitarianism unites supporters of hedonism and “seeking for pleasure”, while supporters of Kant’s theory are tight to moral obligation towards those whom they take responsibility.
The crucial factor to understand who is right in this discussion is to understand the situation, in which people live. It is possible to assume that in major young and independent people support the theory of hedonism. For instance, young people are always in seek of pleasures the world suggests them. Seeking of opportunity and their role in life are also a way to enjoy life in the variety of aspects. Kant’s morality about telling truth, even if it hurts cannot be applied in every situation, but only when it is needed (for example, among close friends). Being polite and diplomatic is important in the world, and, for instance, sometimes we cannot consider telling all the truth sharply and roughly as the right way. Solving conflicts at work place, being diplomatic in international policy, avoiding difficulties in communication are what we all need in modern stressful world.
Although Kant’s point of view can be considered as the ideal, the reality is that we cannot use it in all of its advantages. The theory of utilitarianism is livelier and more positive than Kant’s one. Furthermore, it can be applied very well in a business context. In relation to Freeman’s stakeholders’ theory, every company can develop in the right way only when management and leaders give importance even to every employer and take care of their satisfaction from what they do and from what leaders decide. Right choice of groups of stakeholders, whose requirements will be met in the first stage; the lack of discrimination in relation to various groups of stakeholders brings effective results of social actions to society and investment climate. The involvement of stakeholders in strategic company management
brings positive influences of social responsibility on the cost of the company and development of techniques and optimal level of social responsibility. Even in this context hedonism is revealed in its full measure, and can be easily figured out that, in the future, this disposition will be developed very well by a great number of researchers. Human feelings in the context of utilitarian theory are what we can treat as the key concept of understanding motivation for doing work. We should love what we do and do what we love. This notion is how I can explain my point of view on this matter.
Works Cited
Aaker, Jennifer L. & Lee, Angela Y. “I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion. The Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 28. June 2001.
Bentham, Jeremy. The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. 2001.
Kant, Immanuel; Kitcher, Patricia (intro.); Pluhar, W. (trans.). Critique of Pure Reason. Indianapolis: Hackett. 1996.
