We now turn to examine the second aspect of Kant’s morality which is mainly advanced by Wood through the foundational model. The substantive aspect focuses on dignity in the context of rational normativity in the Kant’s moral philosophy. This means to describe what the human dignity is, we might appeal to the nature of humanity in term of rational being as an end itself in Kant’s practical philosophy, rather than humanity in its technical term. By this, it follows the nature of humanity could be presented only through human rational activity when they ought to act rationally under the demand of normative laws since humanity as a rational being related to some basic normative notions, such as; the nature of rational nature as an end in itself,
…show more content…
The P1 engages with the task of action theory along the line of the Kant’s conception of rationality. The core of this conception is whatever we do is from and for a reason. Wood formulates this as follows:
It ought to be utterly uncontroversial that whatever we do, we should act for reasons, and therefore from a reason. It is a virtual tautology to say that what we should do is the same as whatever there are the best (or at least good enough) reasons to do, and that we should do it for (or from) those reasons.
In the light of this paragraph, the P1 might be unfolded into two sub-propositions: first, reason is the source of all acts and actions (P1-a), second, all acts must be from a good reason (P1-b). The first sub-proposition (P1-a) justifies the source of human activity in term of rationality ,i.e.; reason as a faculty or will or practical reason. Meanwhile, the later sub-proposition (P1-b) attempts to identify in what sense we recognize the rationality of acts and actions; i.e., to act at least on some good reasons or genuine …show more content…
But after a while, a man might say; he realizes his marriage with his woman was a mistake because ‘it based on the emotional and love against his rational choice’. Wood argues the use of rationality here is unreal understanding for the notion of reason because it is driven from a man’s social belief as a someone from higher class rather from his real activity which is initially based on a reason that settled already in his pervious decision of marriage. Therefore, the moral story in the cases like this, as Wood says, is
The P1 engages with the task of action theory along the line of the Kant’s conception of rationality. The core of this conception is whatever we do is from and for a reason. Wood formulates this as follows:
It ought to be utterly uncontroversial that whatever we do, we should act for reasons, and therefore from a reason. It is a virtual tautology to say that what we should do is the same as whatever there are the best (or at least good enough) reasons to do, and that we should do it for (or from) those reasons.
In the light of this paragraph, the P1 might be unfolded into two sub-propositions: first, reason is the source of all acts and actions (P1-a), second, all acts must be from a good reason (P1-b). The first sub-proposition (P1-a) justifies the source of human activity in term of rationality ,i.e.; reason as a faculty or will or practical reason. Meanwhile, the later sub-proposition (P1-b) attempts to identify in what sense we recognize the rationality of acts and actions; i.e., to act at least on some good reasons or genuine …show more content…
But after a while, a man might say; he realizes his marriage with his woman was a mistake because ‘it based on the emotional and love against his rational choice’. Wood argues the use of rationality here is unreal understanding for the notion of reason because it is driven from a man’s social belief as a someone from higher class rather from his real activity which is initially based on a reason that settled already in his pervious decision of marriage. Therefore, the moral story in the cases like this, as Wood says, is