Immanuel Kant An Atypical Philosopher From The...

Immanuel Kant was an atypical philosopher from the Enlightenment Era. His ethical views differed from other philosophers during the time. While most views were based on consequences, his ethical views were deontological, meaning that he judged actions based on the intention rather that the result of the action. He believed that morality should not be based on emotion, but on reason. You perform an action not because it will provide you a means to an end, but because it was reasonably right, and based on good will. Rational human beings are ends in themselves. He did not believe in the idea of a conscious, he believed that we are not born with one and that God did not give us one. However, he did believe that God gave us the ability to reason. These views are displayed in his Categorical Imperatives. Before I go over the Categorical Imperatives, I will define his distinction between a Categorical Imperative and a Hypothetical one. According to Kant, all imperatives command either hy pothetically or categorically. If an action is good only as a means to something else, it is hypothetical. If an act is good in and of itself, without regard to a further end, it is categorical (Textbook, 515). Using this reasoning, you could state that most other philosopher’s views during this time period are hypothetical imperatives. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives are what he thinks members of a society should be doing. He bases his views of actions on the question of would my action makeShow MoreRelatedJurisprudential Theories on IPR13115 Words   |  53 Pages According to Article 27 of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.[32]  Although the relationship between intellectual property and  human rights  is a complex one,[33]  there are moral arguments for intellectual property. The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality theorists believe