At some point in most of our lives we become aware of the difference in perception and reality through increased self-awareness, an event that causes us to change how we view everything, a friend who is a little too honest, or a change in generational social awareness (ie// the equality movement of the mid-20th century). I had always viewed the world through the lens of right and wrong and that each person is given the choice to live their lives in a moral manner that contributes to society or as an immoral leach. One large champion of a similar concept was the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who claimed that morality was the result of our freedom to make choices for ourselves that define and shape us (Velasquez, 2014, 7-4c). It is in this
…show more content…
In an era where many sought the opportunity to define man’s morality within concrete limits, Kant speculated that morality did not begin with God or the priest, but within the individual and the individual’s perception of right and wrong. Kant arrived at the phrase, “autonomy of the will,” claiming that one has the freedom to choose what they will do and why they will do it; whether the action is moral or immoral is entirely up to the individual (Velasquez, 7-4c). Kant took this a step further by applying a logical lens that one could view their decisions through; in essence this two-part test could be used to find the morality of any situation. The first part called for the individual to question whether or not they believe the action to be morally right. The second part required the individual to believe that the action should be performed by all human beings, and as such, be willing to have had the action performed upon them (Velasquez, 7-4c). This concept would prove to be quasi-revolutionary because morality would no longer be absolutely defined by others, and the responsibility for one’s actions would then be largely placed upon the individual. Kant would have viewed tests like the 6 Moral Stages that seek to define one’s morality as a potential tool to indicate one’s morality, but not something to place one’s …show more content…
Kant was a devoutly religious man while Nietzsche is most famous for proclaiming that God is in fact dead. Though very different each claimed that one’s view of morality began within themselves. Both believe that each individual chooses to be moral or immoral, but for Nietzsche this begins and ends with the individual, claiming that what makes one happy is what should be done, while Kant claimed that if one performs an action they should do so with the understanding that this action could also happen to them (Velasquez, 7-7c and 7-4c). It is however around the very concept of morality that these philosophers differ the most. Kant believed that morality is, in essence, the very meaning of our existence. Nietzsche however claimed that, because God is dead, we no longer have a reason to hold tightly to our morality and as a logical conclusion morality is also dead. Had Nietzsche and Kant been contemporaries, Kant would have found Nietzsche’s philosophy, like utilitarianism, to be lacking a reason for existence outside of a superficial means to be driven by our quest for material, physical pleasure (Velasquez,
In an era where many sought the opportunity to define man’s morality within concrete limits, Kant speculated that morality did not begin with God or the priest, but within the individual and the individual’s perception of right and wrong. Kant arrived at the phrase, “autonomy of the will,” claiming that one has the freedom to choose what they will do and why they will do it; whether the action is moral or immoral is entirely up to the individual (Velasquez, 7-4c). Kant took this a step further by applying a logical lens that one could view their decisions through; in essence this two-part test could be used to find the morality of any situation. The first part called for the individual to question whether or not they believe the action to be morally right. The second part required the individual to believe that the action should be performed by all human beings, and as such, be willing to have had the action performed upon them (Velasquez, 7-4c). This concept would prove to be quasi-revolutionary because morality would no longer be absolutely defined by others, and the responsibility for one’s actions would then be largely placed upon the individual. Kant would have viewed tests like the 6 Moral Stages that seek to define one’s morality as a potential tool to indicate one’s morality, but not something to place one’s …show more content…
Kant was a devoutly religious man while Nietzsche is most famous for proclaiming that God is in fact dead. Though very different each claimed that one’s view of morality began within themselves. Both believe that each individual chooses to be moral or immoral, but for Nietzsche this begins and ends with the individual, claiming that what makes one happy is what should be done, while Kant claimed that if one performs an action they should do so with the understanding that this action could also happen to them (Velasquez, 7-7c and 7-4c). It is however around the very concept of morality that these philosophers differ the most. Kant believed that morality is, in essence, the very meaning of our existence. Nietzsche however claimed that, because God is dead, we no longer have a reason to hold tightly to our morality and as a logical conclusion morality is also dead. Had Nietzsche and Kant been contemporaries, Kant would have found Nietzsche’s philosophy, like utilitarianism, to be lacking a reason for existence outside of a superficial means to be driven by our quest for material, physical pleasure (Velasquez,