• The situation, however, is not unique to Kant.
  • Astronomers were either Laplaceans or Kantians.
  • You Kant Dismiss Universalizability | Slate Star Codex

While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then....

Kant’s idea of morality is sought from a single individual.

Kant was born, lived, and died in this city, in East Prussia.

But it is important to understand what Kant means by'criticism', or 'critique'.
In Fries, we have the distinction between , , and , where ("knowledge") is the positive knowledge of mathematics and science, ("belief") consists of the abstract clues to things-in-themselves that Kant sees in morality, and then ("intimation") consists of the positive aesthetic feelings that relate us directly to things-in-themselves.

Thus, Kant would think that only God would have this facility.

This further prompted Kant to respond to Hume with his own analysis on the theory of metaphysics.
Finally, the only way to act freely in the full sense of exercisingautonomy is therefore to act on formal principles or categoricalimperatives, which is also to act morally. Kant does not mean thatacting autonomously requires that we take no account of our desires,because that would be impossible (5:25, 61). Rather, he holds that wetypically formulate maxims with a view to satisfying our desires, butthat “as soon as we draw up maxims of the will forourselves” we become immediately conscious of the moral law(5:29). This immediate consciousness of the moral law takes thefollowing form:


Now, since it was just a guess, how much credit can we give to Kant?

Signs along the route explain how it was once a stream bed, and a venue for pre-Columbian fairs and functions, but the bed dried up when the stream was diverted in the development of Toronto.

Third, insofar as I act only on material principles or hypotheticalimperatives, I do not act freely, but rather I act only to satisfy somedesire(s) that I have, and what I desire is not ultimately within mycontrol. To some limited extent we are capable of rationally shapingour desires, but insofar as we choose to act in order to satisfydesires we are choosing to let nature govern us rather than governingourselves (5:118). We are always free in the sense that we always havethe capacity to govern ourselves rationally instead of letting ourdesires set our ends for us. But we may (freely) fail to exercise thatcapacity. Moreover, since Kant holds that desires never cause us toact, but rather we always choose to act on a maxim even when that maximspecifies the satisfaction of a desire as the goal of our action, italso follows that we are always free in the sense that we freely chooseour maxims. Nevertheless, our actions are not free in the sense ofbeing autonomous if we choose to act only on material principles, because inthat case we do not give the law to ourselves, but instead we choose toallow nature in us (our desires) to determine the law for ouractions.

But then Kant doesn't want to go all the way with that.

In contrast to material principles, formal principles describe how oneacts without making reference to any desires. This is easiest tounderstand through the corresponding kind of imperative, which Kantcalls a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative commandsunconditionally that I should act in some way. So while hypotheticalimperatives apply to me only on the condition that I have and set thegoal of satisfying the desires that they tell me how to satisfy,categorical imperatives apply to me no matter what my goals and desiresmay be. Kant regards moral laws as categorical imperatives, which applyto everyone unconditionally. For example, the moral requirement to helpothers in need does not apply to me only if I desire to help others inneed, and the duty not to steal is not suspended if I have some desirethat I could satisfy by stealing. Moral laws do not have suchconditions but rather apply unconditionally. That is why they apply toeveryone in the same way.

Now, it was reading Hume, Kant says, that awakened him from his .

First, it follows from the basic idea of having a will that to act atall is to act on some principle, or what Kant calls a maxim. A maximis a subjective rule or policy of action: it says what you are doingand why. Kant gives as examples the maxims “to let noinsult pass unavenged” and “to increase my wealth by everysafe means” (5:19, 27). We may be unaware of our maxims, we maynot act consistently on the same maxims, and our maxims may not beconsistent with one another. But Kant holds that since we are rationalbeings our actions always aim at some sort of end or goal, which ourmaxim expresses. The goal of an action may be something as basic asgratifying a desire, or it may be something more complex such asbecoming a doctor or a lawyer. In any case, the causes of our actionsare never our desires or impulses, on Kant's view. If I act to gratifysome desire, then I choose to act on a maxim that specifies thegratification of that desire as the goal of my action. For example, ifI desire some coffee, then I may act on the maxim to go to a cafe andbuy some coffee in order to gratify that desire.

A Brief Summary of Kant’s Categorical Imperative | Cogito

In both the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critiqueof Practical Reason, Kant also gives a more detailed argument for theconclusion that morality and freedom reciprocally imply one another,which is sometimes called the reciprocity thesis (Allison 1990). Onthis view, to act morally is to exercise freedom, and the only way tofully exercise freedom is to act morally. Kant's arguments for thisview differ in these texts, but the general structure of his argumentin the Critique of Practical Reason may be summarized as follows.