I learned that Kant believes that in order to be good in our everyday lives we have to morally good as well. Our goodness comes from within. I guess my question would be if there a way that someone can be morally bad? I think that we all know what is right or wrong, it's just the decisions that we make that allow people to think that we are morally wrong. We may believe in different things, however in the end we all have the same feelings and know what its like to be let down or upset. The question that always seems to come us is whether or not we are born good or bad? Some believe that we are born into sin and others believe that we are born innocent and the world around us makes us bad. It's interesting to see where people stand on this issue.
I learned that Kant believed that animals had the first capacity (sensibility) but lacked the second, which is understanding. I wonder what Kant would think now, with all the advancements that have been made with animal studies. Kant's work was done in the mid to late 18th century. I wonder how his theories would develop if he conducted his same inquiries today. For example, primates have been taught sign language and have the ability to have conversations and understand feeling. Elephants are highly emotional animals that develop ritualistic behavior for birth and death events.
I learned from Kant was said in the book on page 150 which goes into detail of Kant's conception of reason. It went into saying how we are not merely perceiving, judging, and theorizing beings but we do things, we affect the world by our actions. And I stopped to think on that and realized how on the mark he was because we all do affect the world in one form or the other. It could be simply helping an old lady across the street and then that old lady could give change to a homeless man living on the street. I realized no matter how small or how big, our actions affect the chains of events through the course of each day. One question that remains is if we were able to retrace our steps would it create new outcomes or simply get to the same end result.
I learned that Kant viewed animals very differently than from how they are viewed today by scientists. He didn't think that animals were able to understand things like humans could understand as one of my colleagues mentioned. Today, however, there are a few animals that show us that they do understand us and that they do have emotions; they can feel what it means to be sad and what it means to be happy. It would be interesting to see his views on this subject today. I think he would change his mind a little bit.
I learned that Kant believed one of man’s key defining features was our Pure Practical Reason. And this ability to distinguish what will bring about short or long term satisfaction separates us from animals. I also found it very interesting that Kant would place humans between animals and angles as far as desires and moral obligations. We are being placed between things that are known to exist and are driven by instinct and divine beings whose existence cannot be proven. The only questions that I have concerning Kant are about his ideas of the human condition along with his concept of free will and in what conditions they apply.
By reading Kant, I realized that before we make decisions we must process all the information and decide what is the morally correct decision. People make decisions with themselves in mind, forgetting about the consequences that the decision might bear. As humans, we have the ability to understand and act morally. Kant wants us to use our ability to make the "human" decisions rather than acting like "animals".
Through reading Kant, I have learned that in philosophy, as well as religion, people believe that certain moral choices are right being based on logic, and in desire to help another person, or to put someone else in front of themselves. while on the other hand personal desires, that put yourself in front of another person or in sway to harm another person, is wrong, but unlike religion, is not evil. but rather he states the deliberate questing after one's own happiness over one's obligation to other people that is evil. it is this idea that makes me wonder what other philosophers view as the evil of human morality, and their stance on said subject. do they believe that humans are naturally good, only occasionally breaking into morally wrong ground, or are we only morally wrong when we forget about others?
What i learned from Kant is that there is always a reason for the way that we act whether is is good or bad. We are different from animals because of this. While animals act on instinct, we act on choices. He says that we can always get what we want, but we do have moral duties. Kant does not want us to act like animals, but rather make good moral choices like humans can.
I think that Kant was very interesting to look at. He has had a lot of thought about how we are higher than animals, and that animals basically just go off instinct. I think that this is interesting because some animal studies have proven some kind of knowledge that we can't really explain. I think what he was trying to prove was that we have the responsibility to make different choices because animals can't, they go off instinct.
When I read Kant I learned that there are always reasons as to why a person makes the choices they make; whether they be rooted in the best or worst intentions. Humans are directed by emotions and morals and we use these to make our decisions. I also learned that animals act on instinct alone while as humans we have the capacity to use our feelings and morals to process events. Humans are able to understand that our actions have consequences and our lives are culminations of these consequences.
The main thing I took away from Kant is that humans are above all other living things of earth because of our ability for higher cognition. We can differentiate between decisions and act on reason rather than on instinct. We know why we made a certain decision, unlike animals who make the decision only because it is in their instinct.
One of the key things I learned from reading Kant was that humans always have a reason for making a choice in their life. They understand that their decision will yield a positive outcome or negative outcome. Instead of acting on instinct we as humans act on reasons. I learned that we as human have a higher cognition than animals because we decide by reason not instinct.
I learned that Kant believes that in order to be good in our everyday lives we have to morally good as well. Our goodness comes from within. I guess my question would be if there a way that someone can be morally bad? I think that we all know what is right or wrong, it's just the decisions that we make that allow people to think that we are morally wrong. We may believe in different things, however in the end we all have the same feelings and know what its like to be let down or upset. The question that always seems to come us is whether or not we are born good or bad? Some believe that we are born into sin and others believe that we are born innocent and the world around us makes us bad. It's interesting to see where people stand on this issue.
ReplyDeleteI learned that Kant believed that animals had the first capacity (sensibility) but lacked the second, which is understanding. I wonder what Kant would think now, with all the advancements that have been made with animal studies. Kant's work was done in the mid to late 18th century. I wonder how his theories would develop if he conducted his same inquiries today. For example, primates have been taught sign language and have the ability to have conversations and understand feeling. Elephants are highly emotional animals that develop ritualistic behavior for birth and death events.
ReplyDeleteI learned from Kant was said in the book on page 150 which goes into detail of Kant's conception of reason. It went into saying how we are not merely perceiving, judging, and theorizing beings but we do things, we affect the world by our actions. And I stopped to think on that and realized how on the mark he was because we all do affect the world in one form or the other. It could be simply helping an old lady across the street and then that old lady could give change to a homeless man living on the street. I realized no matter how small or how big, our actions affect the chains of events through the course of each day. One question that remains is if we were able to retrace our steps would it create new outcomes or simply get to the same end result.
ReplyDeleteI learned that Kant viewed animals very differently than from how they are viewed today by scientists. He didn't think that animals were able to understand things like humans could understand as one of my colleagues mentioned. Today, however, there are a few animals that show us that they do understand us and that they do have emotions; they can feel what it means to be sad and what it means to be happy. It would be interesting to see his views on this subject today. I think he would change his mind a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI learned that Kant believed one of man’s key defining features was our Pure Practical Reason. And this ability to distinguish what will bring about short or long term satisfaction separates us from animals. I also found it very interesting that Kant would place humans between animals and angles as far as desires and moral obligations. We are being placed between things that are known to exist and are driven by instinct and divine beings whose existence cannot be proven. The only questions that I have concerning Kant are about his ideas of the human condition along with his concept of free will and in what conditions they apply.
ReplyDeleteBy reading Kant, I realized that before we make decisions we must process all the information and decide what is the morally correct decision. People make decisions with themselves in mind, forgetting about the consequences that the decision might bear. As humans, we have the ability to understand and act morally. Kant wants us to use our ability to make the "human" decisions rather than acting like "animals".
ReplyDeleteThrough reading Kant, I have learned that in philosophy, as well as religion, people believe that certain moral choices are right being based on logic, and in desire to help another person, or to put someone else in front of themselves. while on the other hand personal desires, that put yourself in front of another person or in sway to harm another person, is wrong, but unlike religion, is not evil. but rather he states the deliberate questing after one's own happiness over one's obligation to other people that is evil.
ReplyDeleteit is this idea that makes me wonder what other philosophers view as the evil of human morality, and their stance on said subject. do they believe that humans are naturally good, only occasionally breaking into morally wrong ground, or are we only morally wrong when we forget about others?
What i learned from Kant is that there is always a reason for the way that we act whether is is good or bad. We are different from animals because of this. While animals act on instinct, we act on choices. He says that we can always get what we want, but we do have moral duties. Kant does not want us to act like animals, but rather make good moral choices like humans can.
ReplyDeleteI think that Kant was very interesting to look at. He has had a lot of thought about how we are higher than animals, and that animals basically just go off instinct. I think that this is interesting because some animal studies have proven some kind of knowledge that we can't really explain. I think what he was trying to prove was that we have the responsibility to make different choices because animals can't, they go off instinct.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Kant I learned that there are always reasons as to why a person makes the choices they make; whether they be rooted in the best or worst intentions. Humans are directed by emotions and morals and we use these to make our decisions. I also learned that animals act on instinct alone while as humans we have the capacity to use our feelings and morals to process events. Humans are able to understand that our actions have consequences and our lives are culminations of these consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing I took away from Kant is that humans are above all other living things of earth because of our ability for higher cognition. We can differentiate between decisions and act on reason rather than on instinct. We know why we made a certain decision, unlike animals who make the decision only because it is in their instinct.
ReplyDeleteOne of the key things I learned from reading Kant was that humans always have a reason for making a choice in their life. They understand that their decision will yield a positive outcome or negative outcome. Instead of acting on instinct we as humans act on reasons. I learned that we as human have a higher cognition than animals because we decide by reason not instinct.
ReplyDelete