“Conscience is an instinct to pass judgement upon ourselves in accordance with moral laws”. This is the first line Kant says when he speaks of conscience. Kant is known for proclaiming that there is a universal moral law and that all humans, unless there is an inherent problem with an individual’s ability to have a full and proper conscience, are subject to this universal law and cannot be considered innocent if they disobey that conscience. There is another large aspect of society that is known for having a rigid moral code. That would easily be religion. In every religion there is a scripture to live by and a set of rules as to what is moral. In Christianity there is the Ten Commandments. A muslim has the 5 pillars of Islam. Hinduism has
…show more content…
He never lists anything in particular, and does not provide many examples or scenarios in his essay as to what is specifically moral or not. Kant states that the universal moral law “is based on reason and not sentiment, is incorruptible and incontestably just and pure.” (Kant 132) He also states that it is “established as the holy and inviolable law of humanity” (Kant 132). Now what is incontestably pure and just is easily debated. But in one of his few examples, interestingly pertaining to religion, he talks of how if a man is being told by his religion that he can be discriminating of people of other faiths or that he can participate in dishonesty, then the natural moral law should supersede these positive laws (Kant, 133). From these, I believe that the best definition of moral law is to do what it just to all people, as to what makes the world a better place. He seems to follow the golden rule: you should not act in such a way that affects other people in a way in which you would not want to be affected. Now what can make the world a better place, when being theorized, can vary much from one perspective to another. So the definition I have inferred is meant to be pragmatic and apply to all people, grounded in the necessity to respect human rights of good health, safety, and dignity, and from reason as Kant stated …show more content…
Muslims in the US were in for much discrimination after 9/11. Many (uninformed) people were sure that since they were all going off the same scripture, that other Muslims were to be feared. But this whole argument could be made for the KKK and Christians. But then that would include the charitable Mormon and Catholic individuals previously mentioned, which there are most likely equivalents of in Islam, given how many follow the religion. Perhaps this can be applied to those who are following Kant’s universal moral law (although perhaps not as easily since there have been proclamations found in scriptures that we now consider immoral, such as denying women’s rights, thankfully largely ignored by most now). Perhaps someone could commit an act such as robbing a small family store to feed their family instead of getting a job, but argue it is under Kant’s moral law because it is for the good of his family. This would obviously be immoral because it still affected another family very negatively. In conclusion, it seems that Kant’s universal moral law is very left open to interpretation . (Kant, 132) Religious moral laws, while often being much more specific, in their contemporary context there is a spectrum as to how literally these laws are taken in everyday life. So I conclude that all the conflict and/or
He never lists anything in particular, and does not provide many examples or scenarios in his essay as to what is specifically moral or not. Kant states that the universal moral law “is based on reason and not sentiment, is incorruptible and incontestably just and pure.” (Kant 132) He also states that it is “established as the holy and inviolable law of humanity” (Kant 132). Now what is incontestably pure and just is easily debated. But in one of his few examples, interestingly pertaining to religion, he talks of how if a man is being told by his religion that he can be discriminating of people of other faiths or that he can participate in dishonesty, then the natural moral law should supersede these positive laws (Kant, 133). From these, I believe that the best definition of moral law is to do what it just to all people, as to what makes the world a better place. He seems to follow the golden rule: you should not act in such a way that affects other people in a way in which you would not want to be affected. Now what can make the world a better place, when being theorized, can vary much from one perspective to another. So the definition I have inferred is meant to be pragmatic and apply to all people, grounded in the necessity to respect human rights of good health, safety, and dignity, and from reason as Kant stated …show more content…
Muslims in the US were in for much discrimination after 9/11. Many (uninformed) people were sure that since they were all going off the same scripture, that other Muslims were to be feared. But this whole argument could be made for the KKK and Christians. But then that would include the charitable Mormon and Catholic individuals previously mentioned, which there are most likely equivalents of in Islam, given how many follow the religion. Perhaps this can be applied to those who are following Kant’s universal moral law (although perhaps not as easily since there have been proclamations found in scriptures that we now consider immoral, such as denying women’s rights, thankfully largely ignored by most now). Perhaps someone could commit an act such as robbing a small family store to feed their family instead of getting a job, but argue it is under Kant’s moral law because it is for the good of his family. This would obviously be immoral because it still affected another family very negatively. In conclusion, it seems that Kant’s universal moral law is very left open to interpretation . (Kant, 132) Religious moral laws, while often being much more specific, in their contemporary context there is a spectrum as to how literally these laws are taken in everyday life. So I conclude that all the conflict and/or