Kant is a philosopher of the illustration. Their motto “atrvete to know” for yourself, by reason itself, means an attack on the metaphysics and besides, you know, trying to overcome the problems faced by both rationalist and empiricist by . Let us now use a book anglosajn scope to enter the realm of criticism, which is where we must move if we do real philosophy. In its policy Teora, Richard Brandt proposes two “proof of principles ticos”.The first is consistency. Belief states that a person practices must be consistent. Ticos inconsistent statements do not establish ningn definitive statement about the type of desirable behavior or correct. Moreover, the general test, according to Brandt, applies only to statements ticos individuals, as desirable, proper, required, &.
The topics about moral duty or obligation, which is the foundation of morality Kant, is released by Brabdt into question, since according l can detect the following cases where you see the inconsistency of the theory to Kantian moral about the maximum and the need for universalizacin, every moral act to be evaluated according the scope
universal, ie that could be put as a model for all, according to the natural law which must be agreed. The criticism of Brandt is presented as follows:
“We can now understand why Kant’s proposal is unacceptable, at least as it is presented. 1.Very immoral defined as the maximum can be both objectively and subjectively unacceptable acceptable to the agent if the agent is an insensitive person and in a position est favorable.2. To many to be a serious objecin which his theory leaves open the possibility that a maximum be universalized for one person but not for another. Many people think, with good reason, that if an act is right at all, is right for everyone in the same circumstances. 3.If an agent wants to justify an act, decide to consider it in terms of a maximum as SPECIFIC escrpulos not have to accept it as a guiding rule of conduct around the world. According to the theory of Kant, everybody want to justify their action as it can always get it. ”
One of the most complex problems in Kant’s policy is the Determination of the will. In the third antinomy Kant raises this issue so that should use, ultimately, to something that he himself is problemtico, God, to ensure absolute respect for human morality. Thus, the moral of Kant continues vindose the need to resort to metaphysics entities, so we fall into a paradox or unresolvable contradiction from the epistemological theory of the Criticism of Pure Reason. Our ability to understand the causal relationship of the phenomena of nature is limited in that the categories should fenomnico material from that space and time have been organized in the first moment of the captacin objects. Since we can not fully aware of the phenomena and their causes, but the reason you try, we must postulate a freedom to avoid the pitfalls of determinism that will prevent human freedom. The paradox is raised by Kant as follows:
Thesis: Causality, according to the laws of nature, is not the only from which can be derived from all the phenomena that constitute the world, but it must be admitted, in addition, a free causality to account for these phenomena.
Antithesis: Freedom does not exist, because everything happens in the real world in accordance with the laws (causes) of Nature.
Idealism is the option of declaring both the thesis and antithesis to be true. To try to explain the oposiciny maintain the existence of freedom Kant introduces the distinction between the phenomena and the phenomenon, so that causal determinism is maintained in the order of the phenomena, the world the things we see and touch. The possibility of a free causality Kant is situated within the scope of the phenomenon, which manifests itself to pure thought.
I would like at this stage to a criticism that I believe essential to the study of morality as we have proposed. This is the criticism of Schweitzer, which includes Hume, Bayle, Rousseau, Voltaire, Wolf, Lessing, among others. Praises in these terms:
“The creed of the religion of the reason is simply the optimistic conception of the world politico-phraseological reproduced with Christian, that is, preserving inside the Tesma Christian belief in immortality . An omniscient Creator and everything has benvolo the world, and holds it accordingly. The man is endowed with free will, and discover in their razny in his heart the moral law which must guide individuals and the human race to perfection, and to comply in the world to God’s towering PURPOSE. Each contains within it a soul indestructible, he feels that his moral life is the supreme happiness, and after death enters a state of pure, spiritual. ” 27
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is a big fan of Kant. This philosopher, known as pessimistic slogans of European philosophers was an important influence on Nietzsche. His main book, entitled The World as Will and representation, is that there are two forces in the world fighting each s, Will and representation. Will represent, say, the world of existence in the midst of a nature that determines our actions, a world that does not support but the struggle, life is understood as a struggle of will travs domain. But the representation is the search for a departure from this world of determinations. Only, according to Schopenhauer, through the music is able to overcome this world where the struggle, always dominated by the Will, may be at least bounded by the Hindu equivalent of Nirvana to the representation travs No, this is the reason pure practices within the meaning of Kant. The criticism of Schopenhauer Schweitzer plays, along with Nietzsche, the two most important philosophers of the nineteenth century, preventing conduct which, on issues arising with the irrationalism of the French Revolution in As for the intolerance that led to the Terror, and on the other hand, the idealism that he could not overcome the romantic optimism of the Idea of Progress developed in the era of the illustration.Schweitzer said the following, which can certainly help us better understand why the renewed interest in this time of rise of postmodernism called by both German philosophers.
“Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, remain little help to find what you need, that is, a system of social policy that is also true policy. Interested only in an individualistic policy which can not develop a social policy, offer incentives that, valuable as they are by s alone can not contain desmoralizacin up the general view of life. ”
Ticos Schopenhauer proposes three principles: a policy of resignacin, a policy of universal compassion and a policy of renunciacin the world.
The criticism of Schweitzer is blunt: “The universal perspective of Schopenhauer is not, strictly speaking, but above – policy, as the Brahmins, as it is revealed as a constant negation of the world and life.”
In the eighteenth century, companies discovered by Europeans, considered as “natural” lead to the idealistic vision in which justice reigns, purity, brotherhood, freedom. According to Rousseau (1712-1778), Western culture and civilization are the result of oppression, hatred and inequality. Rousseau agrees with the rationalist optimism about the idea of progress. The bean is not done, but civilization corrupted man, according to the Genevan philosopher. Our interest in this philosopher is, besides its way of dealing with the fra rationality of the Enlightenment and its faith in reason scientist and technicians, fern introduce a factor of feeling in policy. However, no matter now remember their aportacina the philosophy politics in the book Social Contract . Whose full title is the social contract Politics or principles of political. Est based society, from the stage of the state of nature, in a general system of inequality, which is notorious manifestacinms of slavery .. To end this situation of alineacin of man, men, to achieve justice, should do the following, as is stated by Rousseau in that book:
“Finding an association which defends and protects with the whole common force the person and property of each partner, in which each, by binding to all, not yet more to follow as it , and remains as free as before. “This is the form of association which is to Rousseau’s social contract, which can be summarized in these terms:
“Each of us puts in common his person and all his power under the supreme direction of general will, and receive, in addition, each member as an indivisible whole.”
The criticism that can be done to Rousseau, as to the idea of a general will, as a pact between all members of the community, as expounded Salvador Giner, is as follows: “His conception of the will is very abstract and general is a homognea society, the various groups do not come cleaved by antagonistic interests. ” 28.
In addition, from the criticism of Giner, Rousseau’s proposal will be an “abolition of individual will, of free will of the people that he himself said. This contradiction is blatant throughout his work, and can not be settled by saying that one of its paradoxes. “