Dali

Dali

Reason Alone Leads to Absolute Morality
Kant’s theory on morality holds more truth for me than any of the other philosophers we have studied so far this semester.   His ideas that moral duties are absolute and are applicable to all people at all times seem more consistent than a moral law based on individual desires, emotions, and circumstances.   Previous studies have accredited morality on such unsubstantial grounds, and I find each more flawed than the next.   Kant’s argument makes being truly moral something difficult in itself, but it is a challenge that allows us the opportunity time and time again without having to worry about unpredictable situations, which according to Kant are irrelevant.  
The basis for Kant’s argument for morality is that human nature is not steadfast enough to shape moral laws.   He believes being moral comes from the capability of a person to act on reason alone.   Kant says that the foundation of morals lies in obligation, duty, and therefore cannot be determined by empirical components, or experiences.   Experiences give us a happening, or say that something is such and such, but never what must be.   Because experiences give room for change and morals are unchanging, morals must be based on something outside of experience, or a priori.   A priori is something known with necessity and pure reason, so they do not change.   The example Kant uses to help the reader understand his point is the well known moral law of “Thou shalt not lie.”   If you have learned not to lie because of some previous experience in lying, then you have not learned by absolute necessity and your position on lying will be seen as circumstantial and likely to change.   It is therefore not a moral law.   If you chose not to lie because of fear of a punishment it may bring, then the problem is the same.   Even if you are doing something that is considered a moral action, if it is not done for the right reasons, duty and obligation, then it is not moral, it is...