Library Reference: N/A

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:  “A good ill is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes”

What I expect to learn:

    I expect to learn the Categorical Imperatives.

Book Review:

    “Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.

Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/Immanuel_Kant)

Kant’s said that for the moral proposition to be true there must be no condition tied to it including the identity of the person and the people around him.  This categorical imperative is about isolating or disconnecting the human presence surrounding the proposition also known as perfect duty. Kant’s account of good is about doing the right things to make other people happy and satisfied. That good will turns to bad when it is about evil. Hypothetical imperative is about telling us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal. The second version of categorical imperative is about imperfect duty. The two versions of categorical imperatives are different versions because the first one tackles the issue of the standards in the society while the second one says the uniqueness of every individual.

What I learned:

    I learned that categorical imperatives have two types and it is complete contrast between the two.

Review Question:

1.    Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

•    Kant’s account of good is about doing the right things to make other people happy and satisfied. That good will turns to bad when it is about evil.

2.    Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

•    Hypothetical imperative is about telling us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal, while categorical imperative is telling us what to do irrespective of our desires.

3.    State the first formulation of the categorical imperatives (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

•    Kant’s said that for the moral proposition to be true there must be no condition tied to it including the identity of the person and the people around him.  This categorical imperative is about isolating or disconnecting the human presence surrounding the proposition also known as perfect duty. This categorical imperatives set to have good effect to us and for others if we made our duties disconnected to us and to others.

4.    State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end), and explain it.

•    The second version of categorical imperative is about imperfect duty. The means justify the end but being imperfect person or human beings we commit false or bad things in life.

Discussion Questions:

1.    Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they different rules? Defend your review.

•    The two versions of categorical imperatives are different versions because the first one tackles the issue of the standards in the society while the second one says the uniqueness of every individual.

2.    Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

•    Yes, I agree with Kant because what is the use of your action if it is not leading to goodness not only for you but also for the sake of the others.

3.    Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

•    Well I thin the first categorical imperative is such general to all that it may fit to nonmoral or immoral actions of a human person and that is depends of course to the person’s own knowledge of morality.

Integrative Questions:

1.    What is duty?

2.    What is good will to us?

3.    What is the importance of knowing the first and second versions of categorical imperative?

4.    Can we really define what is good will to all?

5.    Is finding and doing your duty as a person is enough?