For this assignment I intend to answer the question: Consider Schiller’s critique of Kant: ‘Gladly I serve my friends, but alas I do it with pleasure./ Hence I am plagued with doubt that I am not a virtuous person. / To this the answer is given: / Surely, your only resource is to try to despise them entirely, / And then with aversion do what your duty enjoins you.’ What is the target of Schiller’s epigram? Is it a fair criticism of Kant? To answer this, I will be breaking down this essay to try and grasp what Schiller is really saying about Kant, and thinking about his ‘Moral Philosophy’.
What is Moral Philosophy?
“It is impossible to think of anything in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation, …show more content…
We should all be able to try and gain an understanding about how moral duty works. However, if moral duty is a right, what does it mean if we lose it? Does that mean that we have something wrong? Robbed someone of their own face values? Therefore I think that people are divided on what is right and wrong. The criticism of Kant is fair, because Kant does not give us a full explanation or a decent argument about moral duty, therefore Schiller is ‘mocking’ Kant.
Schiller wrote his critique to show that Kant was not explaining how moral duty worked. He also started to criticise Kant, but Kant wanted to say that we had an inclination towards having the right to moral duty. Furthermore Kant’s criticism goes on to allow us to have a deeper idea of the right to moral duty. Is it fair to criticise Kant? I believe that yes it is fair to criticise Kant. However with Schiller’s critique of Kant, we should be willing to serve our friends. We also need to know when it is time to stop or even to help our friends if it involves an …show more content…
I believe that there is. The reason is that Schiller is not only ‘mocking’ Kant, but also is summarising what Kant is saying in regards to Moral Philosophy and what our duty is. We all have a duty and our duty is to be prepared to help those in need and require our help. There may be various ways in which we can help people, an example used in the lecture was:
“If we see our friends using drugs, should we help our friends get the drugs as it is our duty to help those in need?”
I believe that this question gives us the idea that despite what our Moral Duty is, we should also weigh up alternative options. As Moral Duty is to help those in need, it may be that they need help to stop their addiction, or they might need help to stop trying to physically harming someone. Regardless of what they need, I am led to believe that everyone needs to realise that Kant and Schiller, both don’t criticise each other, but rather Schiller works with Kant by making the thoughts and ideas that Kant puts across simpler to
What is Moral Philosophy?
“It is impossible to think of anything in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation, …show more content…
We should all be able to try and gain an understanding about how moral duty works. However, if moral duty is a right, what does it mean if we lose it? Does that mean that we have something wrong? Robbed someone of their own face values? Therefore I think that people are divided on what is right and wrong. The criticism of Kant is fair, because Kant does not give us a full explanation or a decent argument about moral duty, therefore Schiller is ‘mocking’ Kant.
Schiller wrote his critique to show that Kant was not explaining how moral duty worked. He also started to criticise Kant, but Kant wanted to say that we had an inclination towards having the right to moral duty. Furthermore Kant’s criticism goes on to allow us to have a deeper idea of the right to moral duty. Is it fair to criticise Kant? I believe that yes it is fair to criticise Kant. However with Schiller’s critique of Kant, we should be willing to serve our friends. We also need to know when it is time to stop or even to help our friends if it involves an …show more content…
I believe that there is. The reason is that Schiller is not only ‘mocking’ Kant, but also is summarising what Kant is saying in regards to Moral Philosophy and what our duty is. We all have a duty and our duty is to be prepared to help those in need and require our help. There may be various ways in which we can help people, an example used in the lecture was:
“If we see our friends using drugs, should we help our friends get the drugs as it is our duty to help those in need?”
I believe that this question gives us the idea that despite what our Moral Duty is, we should also weigh up alternative options. As Moral Duty is to help those in need, it may be that they need help to stop their addiction, or they might need help to stop trying to physically harming someone. Regardless of what they need, I am led to believe that everyone needs to realise that Kant and Schiller, both don’t criticise each other, but rather Schiller works with Kant by making the thoughts and ideas that Kant puts across simpler to