Cmpgroup8readingnoteskant Spoliticalphilosophy

Kant’s view on social & political philosophy is one that is based on freedom to every rational human being. And in obtain some kind of peace for the government they must still allow humans to have their freedom in order to keep the peace. However, just because people have freedom it does not mean that we do not have duties to ourselves and also the state. And at this point this is where Kant steps in and tries to elaborate and separate your duties through using your morals. Kant believes that rights and virtues are two different kinds of freedom we all have. Rights concern “universality as formal condition of freedom” but virtue concerns “a necessary end beyond the mere formality of universality.” Kant goes back to ideas about the government and the freedom they allow people to have and what it really means. He believes that no matter who you are, where you’re from, or no matter how much you make you deserve to be happy. But what may make one individual happy may not work for the next in their pursuit for happiness or their definition of it. However we all know that happiness is something that is universally wanted by all. Freedom is a form of happiness that is most valued and cherished and if the government or another individual takes it away then they can affect an individual. The state is who decides what is justice and if you know that you have free choice then you know that you have rights are. And if you violate others rights it’s only fair to take away your happiness which is ultimately freedom.

In class we have discussed ethics and morals and what is right ultimately right for you or what is just right for everyone. Basing everything each individual does off of intentions. Looking at Kant’s philosophy you can see that if you know what you do to other and whether your intentions are good or bad there will always be some kind end result or outcome. We have ethical and moral duties that may outweigh one another and may cause us to make different decisions they challenges us. And comparing this to Kant this possibly could intervene when it comes to our freedom or your rights. And simply because you have freedom you know the responsibility that lies on your shoulders. For example if one person kills someone else, they will lose their rights, taking away their freedom. This was a choice made by them because they chose to violate someone else rights, so they shouldn’t expect to be treated any differently.

Does the choice of ultimate freedom have lasting and solid good results?
Is an eye for an eye the true meaning of justice?
Is there another alternative to happiness, is happiness being free or is it really more than that?

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License