1

By: Mackenzie Hackett

Student number: 202006649

Instructor: Gil Shalev

Philosophy 1005

Due: April 15th, 2022

Kant: The Moral of Philosophy

Kant is recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of all times. He believed that

nothing can be perceived as ‘good’ without stipulations except a good will. (Kant, 2005) He

examined reason in relation to intentions of good will. Kant’s perception of reason suggests that

we not only observe and judge as agents of the world, but we affect others by our actions.

(Stevenson, Haberman, Wright & Witt, p. 176) Therefore, reason is not capable of directing the

will towards its objective or satisfying our needs. Reason is proposed as having an influence on

the will. (Kant, 2005) This in turn leads us to Kant’s moral philosophy system which examines

hypothetical imperatives verses categorical imperatives. It looks at the behaviors of human

beings and how we are motivated by desires of happiness and how ethical circumstances should

be influenced by your will itself. The difference between these imperatives takes a deontological

approach – the external consequences of one’s actions should not have any bearings on their

decisions but their good will should intervene. (Shalev, 2017)

Kant investigates reason in depth. He sometimes refers to our reasoning as understanding.

Kant “points out that we do not just make lots of particular judgements about the world, we try to

integrate all those bits of knowledge into a unified system.” (Stevenson et. al, p. 176) This relates
 2

to our reasoning, it causes us to act in certain ways. “Kant repeatedly expressed his belief in the

free, democratic use of reason to examine everything, however traditional, authoritative, or

sacred: human reasoning should appeal only to the uncompelled assent of anyone capable of

rational judgement.” (Stevenson et. al, p. 172) Humans give reasons on their intentions to do

something, they don’t just act. They rationalize and reflect on what to do in particular situations

and the reason behind their actions. (Shalev, 2017)

Humans are motivated not only by reason but also by our desires. We seek pleasure and

happiness in our daily lives. Kant believes that our actions and behaviors are powered by a

command. When our actions come about due to our desires and wants then we are facing a

situation that is referred to as a hypothetical command. (Shalev, 2017) “A hypothetical

imperative merely says that the action is good for some purpose that one could have or that one

actually does have.” (Kant, p.19) A hypothetical imperative deals with our own desires and

beliefs. For example, “I want B, and I believe that A is the best way to achieve B (i.e., in these

circumstances that if I do A, then B will probably result); therefore, I should do A”. (Stevenson

et. al, p. 176) Deciding to perform task A is a rational decision-making process as you deliberate

your desired outcome. One’s moral compass is not involved with this type of decision-making

which leads to the hypothetical command. (Stevenson et. al, 2018) Consequently, the imperative

that discusses the choice of means to being content is still hypothetical. It commands the deed

but only as a means to an end. (Kant, 2005)

Kant also laid the groundwork to another imperative in two formulations. This next

command deals with morality. Here we will look at the first formulation. Kant wanted to

establish a foundation of morality that is balanced on the idea of one’s own will and reason in

itself without involving anything external in the decision-making process such as consequences
 3

or desires. This is termed categorical imperative. (Shalev, 2017) Kant expresses that we should

“act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of

nature.” (Shalev, 2017) One’s morality should be based on our duty as sensible human beings to

follow our beliefs of reasoning which in turn should be established as a rule for all to follow.

This would be the precise action for everyone to follow always – a universal law, however, this

is where this imperative becomes problematic. For Kant there can never be any grey areas when

it comes to morality, when a universal law is established it has to be used at all times in the way

it is intended no matter the circumstances. For example, lying could never be morally acceptable

because it is not universalizable. However, here is where the problem lies. A situation where

lying would be acceptable, for example, to save someone’s life is an immoral act according to

Kant’s explanation of categorial imperative. “Kant is interested in whether our will obeyed

reason and it cannot obey reason if it wills something that is not universalize-able such as lying.”

(Shalev, 2017) Kant does not necessarily look at the action that one took but the will behind the

action. This is where the practicability of categorical imperative falters. One should be able to

make a moral decision about lying based on the situation and the circumstances surrounding it.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative simple states that it is our duty to

act using our reasoning. We do not need to look for or follow moral guidelines or examine

certain situations or the circumstances surrounding these situations just use reason in our actions.

(Shalev, 2017) “Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of

anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.” (Shalev, 2017) This type of

thinking can be followed but can lack morality because it too can be situational depending on

circumstances. For example, helping an older lady cross the street with her groceries does not

necessarily relate to rational principles of reason but in helping your action is moral as it brought
 4

about feelings of good and happiness for you both. It’s not just the persons principles of reason

that are good but the actual physical action that produces the good and happiness in people which

is a means to an end. (Shalev, 2017) Therefore, this is problematic for this second formulation of

a categorical imperative.

Kant “saw us as free rational beings who can make choices that are not predetermined,

above all when we act on moral reasons.” (Stevenson et. al, p. 177) Kant’s philosophical view on

morality has value in regards to humans being rational agents and looking at our reasoning for

our actions. However, our actions sometimes need to be different depending on the situation and

circumstances surrounding it. We cannot always follow our reason regardless of the situation.
 5

Works Cited

Kant, I. (2005). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. (J. Bennett. Trans.); (Original work

published 1785). Retrieved from

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf

Philosophy 1005: Philosophy of Human Nature. © Gil Shalev & Memorial University of

Newfoundland, 2017. - Instructors notes; Weeks 10 & 11

Stevenson, L., Haberman, D. L., Wright, P. M., & Witt, C. (2018). Thirteen Theories of Human

Nature (7th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

By: Mackenzie Hackett

Student number: 202006649

Instructor: Gil Shalev

Philosophy 1005

Due: April 15th, 2022

Descartes: On Doubt

Descartes main goal of the Method of Doubt, also referred to as Meditation 1, is

certainty. There is a type of certainty “that is so absolute and fundamental” that it will be the

main support of the sciences. (Shalev, 2017) Descartes attempts to scrutinize all factual

knowledge that he has learned throughout his lifetime as to whether it is undoubtable. He is

prepared to create doubt on everything he once believed to be true and factual. (Stevenson,

Haberman, Wright & Witt, 2018) Therefore, any knowledge that remains undoubtable will be

certain. Likewise, if any of the knowledge that he has acquired can be proven to show doubt,

under any circumstances, then it is indeed false knowledge. Descartes explains his method of

doubt through three hypotheses; sensory deception hypothesis, madness/dreaming hypothesis

and the radical deception/evil genius hypothesis. (Shalev, 2017)

In the sensory deception hypothesis Descartes explains how all knowledge is derived

from two areas. The first area is the senses and the second area refers to absolute knowledge

which involves mathematical/logical qualities. We acquire a natural common-sense approach as

we get older. The knowledge we gain from the world comes from our senses. Our common sense

basically assumes that what we see with our eyes is true and certain. However, for example,
 7

when one sees a mirage in the desert it is not real or certain. (Shalev, 2017) Nevertheless,

Descartes does admit that even though one’s senses are how we perceive the world and it is how

we come to conclusions, our senses can be deceptive and are not to be trusted entirely.

(Descartes, 1986; 1996)

In the second hypothesis of the madness dreaming hypothesis Descartes refers to

knowledge that cannot be doubted. For example, like sitting and writing by the fire, something

he is actually doing, he wonders if what he is seeing can be proven doubtful. Because he is

thinking this way he wonders if he is a “brain-damaged madman” and how can he doubt such

things. (Descartes, 1986; 1996) This, in turn, leads him to suggest a dream-like reality where he

is creating these mental images instead of actually being a participant which creates doubt

“towards any object of knowledge obtained through the senses”. (Shalev, 2017) He does

recognize that knowledge acquired through mathematical reasoning cannot be doubted though.

An equation, like 2+3=5, is definite and certain. It cannot be changed or challenged in a dream-

like reality. Therefore, doubt cannot be cast on it through any of these above-mentioned theories.

Descartes does go to the extreme in his third hypothesis when he questions God and if He

is actually deceiving us to believe mathematical equations are certain or if there is another higher

power who makes us question all logical reasonings. Through this hypothesis Descartes states

that this is a possibility. There may be a force or power in the universe that is continuously

deceiving us and what we would call undoubtable mathematical certainty actually has no

connection to reality. Descartes concludes that this kind of deception seems very doubtful which

would, in turn, make all knowledge uncertain. (Shalev, 2017)

Through all of this Descartes concludes that knowledge cannot be absolutely certain. He

“must concede that nothing can be known with the absolute certainty that he was so eagerly
 8

looking after.” (Shalev, 2017) Descartes decides that any future knowledge needs to be viewed

and scrutinized as to whether it is certain or not instead of relying on his former beliefs.

(Descartes, 1986; 1996)

Works Cited

Descartes, R. (1986; 1996). Meditations on First Philosophy in which are demonstrated the

existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and the body (J.

Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press. (Original work

published 1639). Retrieved

from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/descartes/1639/meditations.htm

Philosophy 1005: Philosophy of Human Nature. © Gil Shalev & Memorial University of

Newfoundland, 2017. - Instructors notes; Week 9

Stevenson, L., Haberman, D. L., Wright, P. M., & Witt, C. (2018). Thirteen Theories of Human

Nature (7th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.