2. Descartes began with the mind as the organ of reason and focused
on the process of rationalizing
British empiricists took the second step in the turn, demonstrating
the importance of experience and the limits of reason
Kant’s is the final step
Critical analysis of what kind of knowledge we actually have
And how the mind interacts with impressions and perceptions
Kant wanted to prove that there is an objective world external to us
and that our minds can interact with it
Because our minds have the capacity for a priori knowledge we
can know certain things about experience because they line up
with innate ideas
3. Kant turned to an analysis (or critique) of how
knowledge is possible.
He posited an underlying structure imposed by the
mind on the sensations and perceptions it encounters.
Transcendental idealism claims that knowledge is the
result of the interaction between the mind and
sensation.
Experience is shaped, or structured, by special
regulative ideas called categories.
Kant suggested that instead of mind having to
conform to what can be known, what can be known
must conform to the mind.
4. Like colored glasses,
experience is filtered by the
categories of our minds.
Space, time, causality, etc.
We understand
experiences based on
these categories because
our minds are set up to
work this way.
5. The phenomenal realm is what we perceive
The noumenal realm is objective, comprised of things-in-themselves
What is the point of the phenomenal/noumenal duality?
First, it explains the limits of our understanding
He refutes the empiricist position that we simply cannot know anything
through reason
We can know a great deal of things, even if it’s not everything
Second, this distinction is important for his moral philosophy
Important that there be a level of objective reality behind, or beyond,
what we experience
Proposed transcendental ideas as the things that bridge this gap
These would be a priori, not ideas derived from experience
“Triggered” by experience
They can validate and unify our experiences
6. Kant notes that very few people consistently
think of their own moral judgments as mere
matters of custom or taste, as Hume would have
us believe.
Whether we actually live up to our moral
judgments or not, we think of them as
concerned with how people ought to behave.
Just as we cannot think or experience without
assuming the principle of cause and effect, Kant
thought we cannot function without a sense of
duty.
7. It is important to note that Kant conceives of the good will
as a component of rationality, the only thing which is
“good in itself.”
Kant argues that “ought implies can” – by which he means
it must be possible for human beings to live up to their
moral obligations (since circumstances can prevent us
from doing the good we want to do).
Thus, Kant reasons, I must not be judged on the
consequences of what I actually do, but on my reasons.
Put another way, morality is a matter of motives.
Intentions are what matters.
As Kant himself said, “Morality is not properly the doctrine
of how we should make ourselves happy, but how we
should become worthy of happiness.”
8. Inclinations are unreliable and inconstant, and so not what morality
should be based on. Inclinations are not produced by reason.
Animals act from inclination, not from will.
In contrast to inclinations, acts of will reflect autonomy, the capacity to
choose clearly and freely for ourselves.
Autonomy, or the ability to choose, is commonly understood as a
requirement for moral responsibility.
Kant says, “Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the moral
law.”
Duty does not serve our desires and preferences, but, rather, overpowers
them.
Such moral duty cannot be based on what an individual wants to do,
what he or she likes or doesn’t like, or whether or not the individual cares
about the people involved.
9. Imperatives are forms of speech that command
someone, or tell them what to do. Kant distinguishes
two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical.
Hypothetical imperative: a practical necessity which
serves as a means to some purpose.
Hypothetical imperatives tell us what to do under
specific, variable conditions. They take the form, “If
this, then do that.”
Any time we settle upon some purpose or goal, we
reason how to achieve it.
Subjective to our situation.
10. Categorical imperatives tells us what to do in order for
our act to have moral worth.
The categorical imperative is universally binding on all
rational creatures, and this alone can guide the good
will (which summons our powers to obey such an
imperative).
“I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also
will that my maxim should become a universal law”
(First formulation)
We should act in such a way that we would want the
motivating principle of our action to become a
universal law.
11. Kant believed that as conscious, rational creatures, we
each possess intrinsic worth, a special moral dignity that
always deserves respect.
In other words, we are more than mere objects to be
used to further this or that end.
Kant formulates the categorical imperative around the
concept of dignity – sometimes referred to as the
practical imperative.
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of
another, never merely as a means but always at the
same time as an end” (Second formulation)
