During this paper I will discuss Kant’s ideas on moral freedom. I will also discuss the defense of these ideas in the face of three critiques by Andrew Ward. I will then conclude with my remarks and thoughts upon the subject matter. Kant was a firm believer in moral freedom. Kant proposed that we have moral freedom through two different worlds. These worlds are the phenomenal world and the noumenal world. The phenomenal world is the world in which we live; this is the world of appearances. Kant says that the phenomenal world is characterized by being in space and time and is also governed by causality and is ultimately deterministic. The phenomenal world is a world of appearances and not of the things in themselves. If we were only
…show more content…
It is almost impossible for someone such as myself to accept the idea of the noumenal world at face value with no evidence. Most of Kant’s argument is entirely contingent upon the existence of the noumenal world. In the third criticism for example, it would appear that all the sensuous decisions are made through the phenomenal world and can be predicted. The sensuous decisions are the decisions I would prescribe to most people. These are the actions in which someone is acting on antecedent factors and experience. In my worldview, humans seem to only ever act on experience. However, with Kant’s idea of the noumenal world and the rational decisions he attempts to save moral freedom. The idea that someone makes a decision not based on experience or prior factors is a hard pill to swallow. The noumenal world is a theoretical construct that Kant introduces to save us from a deterministic worldview in which everything is determined by causality. This is an impossible task. Causality is the reason I act towards a certain goal. Causality is the reason behind every decision a person makes. For Kant to determine that an agent can arise at a decision independent of causality does not seem possible. Furthermore, Kant has presupposed characteristics upon a world he previously remarked could not be understood by humans. The noumenal world therefore is a theoretical construct with no basis in reality. However, to remark that humans are wholly governed by causality is a rather disconcerting
It is almost impossible for someone such as myself to accept the idea of the noumenal world at face value with no evidence. Most of Kant’s argument is entirely contingent upon the existence of the noumenal world. In the third criticism for example, it would appear that all the sensuous decisions are made through the phenomenal world and can be predicted. The sensuous decisions are the decisions I would prescribe to most people. These are the actions in which someone is acting on antecedent factors and experience. In my worldview, humans seem to only ever act on experience. However, with Kant’s idea of the noumenal world and the rational decisions he attempts to save moral freedom. The idea that someone makes a decision not based on experience or prior factors is a hard pill to swallow. The noumenal world is a theoretical construct that Kant introduces to save us from a deterministic worldview in which everything is determined by causality. This is an impossible task. Causality is the reason I act towards a certain goal. Causality is the reason behind every decision a person makes. For Kant to determine that an agent can arise at a decision independent of causality does not seem possible. Furthermore, Kant has presupposed characteristics upon a world he previously remarked could not be understood by humans. The noumenal world therefore is a theoretical construct with no basis in reality. However, to remark that humans are wholly governed by causality is a rather disconcerting