• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
  24. 24
  25. 25
  26. 26
  27. 27
  28. 28
  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
  34. 34
  35. 35
  36. 36
  37. 37
  38. 38
  39. 39
  40. 40
  41. 41
  42. 42
  43. 43
  44. 44
  45. 45
  46. 46
  47. 47
  48. 48
  49. 49

Is Christ a Kantian?

Extracts from this document...


(My name is: Sim Yong Kiat. My email address is thegreatestchallenge@yahoo.com.sg. This work is on Kantian Ethics for university students.) Is Christ a Kantian? A Kantian must believe that happiness needs to be deserved, yet Christ says, "Ask and you will be given," not "Do and you shall deserve." Is the moral man really one who merely does moral acts? Remember Christ also says, wash the inside of the dishes and the outside will also be clean. Thus, Christ does distinguish between a moral man and one who merely acts morally. A moral man must do what Kantian Ethics says, for Kantian Ethics is indeed the correct description of ethics, though a man who obeys Kantian Ethics every time need not be a moral man at all. What I want to say is that, Kantian Ethics is only a description of ethics, rather than an explanation, for ethics is also about the man, not only about the act. Kantian Ethics can only be half-completed in answering the question, What is a moral act? The other half i.e. the question on, Who is a moral man? (or Why be moral?) is still unanswered. For as a human being, one needs not only to know, but also to be inspired. If the task of describing ethics is more important than the inspiring of man to be moral, Christ would have chosen to be a philosopher. And that is why Kant's contribution to ethical philosophy is as great as the contribution of Newton in Natural philosophy. For Kant has rightly seen an important truth in morality i.e. that man is capable of performing disinterested and dutiful acts, instead of merely prudent ones. Yet in making a distinction between a moral man and a happy man, Kant has also created a problem of dualism on happiness and virtuousness to arise, just as Descartes has caused the dualism of the mind and body. ...read more.


is none other than the perverted joy of pride i.e. the perverted joy of mere ownership. Although the goals are different, the motivation is the same i.e. the need to own something valuable. The Kantian moralist is thus prompted by pride, not in the sense of trying to gain fame through acting morally, but in the sense of wanting to enjoy the ownership of virtuousness itself. While he sees only that one ought to be compassionate, rather than to act compassionately, he would nevertheless choose to believe that there is a need to act compassionately. For only in this way can he develop an empirical way that would allow him to ascertain to himself that he owns virtuousness. He needs a way to ascertain to himself that he is moral, just as the rich man needs a to spend his money in order to ascertain to himself that he is rich. He refuses to choose faith (for hope is not something to be owned but rather a way of life to be led), and believes instead in free-will, which can help him satisfy his pride, for only if he is free to own can he say proudly that what he owns is truly his. (Now, do not confuse the motivation of pride with the motivation to gain fame. A prideful man can be as humble as anyone, desiring nothing even fame itself. Yet as long as he wants to be moral, then he is prideful, committing moral acts to ascertain to himself that he is such a person. For to be is to be prideful.) (Note that the general Happiness of an ethical man is the perverted joy of pride i.e. in owning, unlike the general Happiness of the aesthetic man which is security from suffering. Only when he has secured his pride can he continue on his life.) Yes, a moralist may be reluctant in carrying out moral acts, but doesn't the athlete also hope that the world record may be of a ...read more.


My answer is simple: The non-existence of moral truths doesn't imply in the least that there are no non-moral truths such as the truths of Physics. And the truth on the non-existence of moral truths is exactly non-moral in nature, just as the truths of Physics. Thus there is absolutely no logical inconsistency in believing the non-existence of moral truths. It seems difficult for ethical philosophers to give up the idea of a moral truth i.e. that which you ought to do solely for its own sake, rather than a prudent sake which involves only pragmatic truths. Yet the moralist needs only to ask himself, is the very concept of free-will really meaningful, for the concept of moral truth makes sense only if the concept of free-will is intelligible? Can the moralist ever give me a precise explanation or definition on what the concept of free-will and responsibility mean? If not, what justifies your belief in the existence of moral truths? Contrary to common belief, it is precisely those believing in the existence of moral truths who should worry about their own belief and dishonesty? This whole article attempts to say only this: You are a happy being, not a moral being. You are a faithful being (and thus powerful enough to move mountains), not a responsible being. It is of course not that you are an irresponsible being, but only that God has never created something called responsibility. Neither is there the wisdom of atheism and acceptance (except for the wisdom of happiness) too, since all is determined. There are only Power and Happiness, nothing more. Just as it is the pride in owning true knowledge that causes one to doubt that nature is fully deterministic though forever unknowable, it is also pride that causes one to believe in morality and free-will. For just as God does not play dice, He does not drink wine either i.e. He is not drunk and thus will create (and see) only one, never two. God is Power, and He created Happiness, and that is all. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Discuss the Relationship between law and morals. Consider how far the law seeks to ...

    This is therefore an example of the influence of societies moral views on the creation of law. A central debate is whether law should attempt to shape morality of whether it should stay on the sidelines. The Hart v Devlin (1957)

  2. Teenagers today lack moral values and self-discipline. Do you agree?"

    The masses of the youths today have little regard for moral values. As society is under the more 'open-minded' western influence, many teens are just blindly following trends, placing peer pressure and the desire to fit in over their own moral values.

  1. Explain Kant(TM)s moral argument for the existence of God and Kant was wrong to ...

    Also in order for summum bonum' to be possible their must be a being which is able to grant it and bring together morality and virtue. This being must be omnipotent and is defined as God. Kant's argument only works with the understanding and acceptance of three key terms which Kant called postulates.

  2. A Kantian would never allow abortion. Discuss.

    In this instance, if abortion was reworded slightly, it could potentially be allowed by a Kantian. In contrast, some people would argue that Kant never intended for his theory to be manipulated in this way to such a degree and consequentially would never allow abortion according to Kant's theory.

  1. "It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinism with the concept of freewill." ...

    And wouldn't you yourself feel trapped, knowing you could not control your actions (even though you had the feeling you could control your actions)? Some people believe determinism is compatible with free will. Compatibilism says that "if determinism is true, then we still can have free will".

  2. Essay on Law vs. Justice

    "An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities is than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in it place."[2] As noted in the case study, Ford managers reduced primarily economic

  1. 'Duty should be done, simply because it is duty.' Explain how Kant analysed this ...

    For example, a man is desperately poor, and debt collectors and bailiffs threaten him. The man considers borrowing money from his friend. He knows that he cannot hope to repay his friend, but he also knows that the debt collectors will leave him alone if he can settle up with them.

  2. Situation Ethics and Moral Decision Making.

    However, if we were in the middle of a war and the bomb needed to be dropped to end the war and save millions of lives, then this is acceptable.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work