When two groups of people coexist it is possible that one group can become subjected by the other. But is it possible for a society based on reason to take over the non-reasonable group? In Kant’s ideal a “kingdom of ends” the kingdom is ruled by Kantian rational human beings (Kant, pg 36). The question then becomes ‘what is the purpose of non-rational beings?’ What rights would be given to the hodgepodge of living beings? I will explore the basics of Kantianism and discuss the outcome of the non-rational beings in the kingdom of ends.
Immanuel Kant is one of the great enlightenment philosophers who focused on deontological ethics; Deon being Greek for “duty” and Kantianism being the popular branch of deontological ethics. Kantianism is making …show more content…
“Autonomous” beings act entirely on moral laws and their duties. The autonomous beings are fully independent and capable of making independent decisions (Kant, pg49). On the other hand, the heteronomous beings acts are dependent on factors other than duty. These beings are afflicted by desires, needs, and the pursuit of happiness. These beings require a system of laws and are required to follow these laws because they are incapable of forming their own moral decisions. Instead they rely on personal feelings and others to make their decisions. Their decisions are not automatically immoral or morally wrong but the actions are absent of …show more content…
A rational being is considered a citizen among the walls and an equal, however, the kingdom does not protect the rights of non-rational beings. The imperfect citizens would include children, the mentally ill, mentally disabled, and nonhuman living beings. Children would not be considered rational because they have not matured yet to a point where they are considered independent. Children are gravely impacted by the opinions of others including his/her peers and parental figures. The child is incapable of making moral actions because they are not yet entrusted to carry out their own duties. For example, a young child or a baby is incapable of acting out a decision. A baby physically cannot make a serious decision; its survival is completely reliant on the caretakers and any other forces that come in contact with that baby. Therefore a child is then incapable of being considered a citizen of the perfect kingdom. As for the mentally ill and disabled, they may be impaired in making reasonable decisions. A reasonable decision is the basis for establishing what a duty can entail, and without reasoning, they are unable to make consistently moral decisions. Therefore, the mentally disabled and ill cannot be considered rational beings. The nonhuman beings would include other living organisms such as animals and plants as well. From a Kantian point of view
Immanuel Kant is one of the great enlightenment philosophers who focused on deontological ethics; Deon being Greek for “duty” and Kantianism being the popular branch of deontological ethics. Kantianism is making …show more content…
“Autonomous” beings act entirely on moral laws and their duties. The autonomous beings are fully independent and capable of making independent decisions (Kant, pg49). On the other hand, the heteronomous beings acts are dependent on factors other than duty. These beings are afflicted by desires, needs, and the pursuit of happiness. These beings require a system of laws and are required to follow these laws because they are incapable of forming their own moral decisions. Instead they rely on personal feelings and others to make their decisions. Their decisions are not automatically immoral or morally wrong but the actions are absent of …show more content…
A rational being is considered a citizen among the walls and an equal, however, the kingdom does not protect the rights of non-rational beings. The imperfect citizens would include children, the mentally ill, mentally disabled, and nonhuman living beings. Children would not be considered rational because they have not matured yet to a point where they are considered independent. Children are gravely impacted by the opinions of others including his/her peers and parental figures. The child is incapable of making moral actions because they are not yet entrusted to carry out their own duties. For example, a young child or a baby is incapable of acting out a decision. A baby physically cannot make a serious decision; its survival is completely reliant on the caretakers and any other forces that come in contact with that baby. Therefore a child is then incapable of being considered a citizen of the perfect kingdom. As for the mentally ill and disabled, they may be impaired in making reasonable decisions. A reasonable decision is the basis for establishing what a duty can entail, and without reasoning, they are unable to make consistently moral decisions. Therefore, the mentally disabled and ill cannot be considered rational beings. The nonhuman beings would include other living organisms such as animals and plants as well. From a Kantian point of view