Kant's Moral Philosophy?

Question

Kant upholds the idea that man MUST believe and put into practice this genuine gift endowed to man in order to preserve moral life. It is an idea which man erects because of the demand of his moral nature, and thus legitimate to consider it necessary even though it cannot be proved by experience.
What gift man possesses is Kant referring to? Explain if possible.

to NacioHB
lol. not really, i am just asking for fun.

Kant referred to this gift as man's freedom.

Answer 1

Kant believes that man was born with an innate sense of reason and because of this we can know what is right and wrong without experience. Therefore, because we know, it is our duty to do what is right.

Answer 2

The genuine gifts which human beings have should not be used ONLY for the preservation of moral life. That being applied in such a manner would be (and for the most part has been thus far in our history) a wasted gift.

Answer 3

The moral argument is an interesting one: Man has within him a moral nature, a sense of “oughtness”; where did it come from?

You see, there arises in all of us, in any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Wherever you go, people in every place and every walk of life, say things like: “That’s not fair.” “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” “That’s my seat, I was there first.” “Come on, you promised.” When people say things like that, they are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which they expect the other person to know.

The other person doesn’t say, “forget your standard,” but almost always tries to make an excuse to show that they really didn’t go against the standard. As C.S. Lewis said about this standard, “...the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm.” You know, there are reasons why you should be let off the hook. That time you were unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money came when you were very hard-up. You never would have promised that if you would have known how busy you were going to be. And then comes the argument between these two people. It is clear that they both believe in a standard or they couldn’t argue about it. You can’t argue that a football player committed a foul unless there is some agreement about the rules of football.

If morality is simply something learned from our culture, as many want us to believe, then why are the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Indians, Greeks and Romans so very similar? Has there ever been a culture where people were admired for running away in battle? Or admired for being selfish (even though they might differ about who you should be unselfish to)? Men have differed on things like whether you should have one wife or four, but they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. In the words of Thomas C. Mayberry, “There is broad agreement that lying, promise breaking, killing, and so on are generally wrong.”

And whenever you find someone who says they don’t believe in right or wrong, you will find them going back on it a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you break one to him, he will immediately be complaining “It’s not fair!” Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. As it has been said, “If there is no God, no atheist can object on moral grounds if I want to kill him.”

I had an atheist friend some years back that I would always argue creation/evolution with. One day he came in and told me how mad he got from watching a documentary on the Holocaust. I can’t remember exactly what I said, but I thought, “Why are you so mad; it’s just survival of the fittest, right? You don’t even believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.” You see, no matter how much he denies it, he feels that standard as well as I do.

So, where did it come from? We don’t see it in animals. A dog doesn’t feel guilt from stealing another dog’s bone. Apes don’t sit down and talk about morals and ethics. If an ox gores a man to death, it is not arrested, tried, and condemned to the electric chair. We recognize its inability to make moral judgments and so we might just confine it in a sturdier pen and warn people to stay away. If we evolved from animals, how did we come to be moral creatures?

Could non-moral matter combined with time and chance be an adequate cause for this? If people are merely products of physical evolution and “survival of the fittest,” why do we sacrifice for each other? Where does courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty, and compassion come from? This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce. In a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder survival? As John Adam has said, “...according to the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest, a loving human with a conscience is at a great disadvantage and would be unlikely to have survived the evolutionary process.”

This is no trivial, insignificant question. If there is no God, then there is no Supreme Being to which we must give an account—no Judgment Day, no heaven or hell. There is no right or wrong, no good or evil. We should live by the saying, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

But if there is a God—well, that’s a different story. Are we an accident, or the image of God? Are we without purpose, or have an eternal goal? Do we live like an animal, or like a child of God? In the end, is it dust, or eternity?

Answer 4

Reason.

Answer 5

Do you have an essay due soon? lol