The absolute duty, a categorical imperative
Introduction.
The man since the beginning of him in the path of reason and society has always there was a question of what is good and what is bad, and about his respective actions. Years and years of philosophy have led to the head of multiple master minds the conception of what we call moral today, which determines customs, and therefore the behavior of humans in societies.
At this point a very Prussian excellent arrived who thought there was a certain mandate that governed our actions, to which he decided to give the creative name of categorical imperative and explain it in a fun book, with striking ideas and exceptional reasoning never seen on a concept never before Used as metaphysics, curiously very similar to what Aristotle and Santo Tomás performed at a certain point, or well only the first misogynist did it and the other did not demand it because of plagiarism because there was no copyright at the time, but that this once I struck it towards a different point, call the moral.
Developing.
For Kant the categorical imperative is not only an action in search of the maximum end, but it is quoted. The categorical imperative would be the one that would represent an action as objectively necessary by itself, without reference to any other purpose, that is to say that the categorical imperative necessarily consists of obtaining something supreme, so that simply nothing could replace it in life and basically It would be what we are looking for in our existence, said something integrates it into the morality we have when we live in society, such that Kant says ".
Essentially good consists of the intention can be called morality if we see it in this way it is clear that for this author the categorical imperative is the maximum of our behavior, behavior governed by our will that in turn is given by the reason delivered “naturally ”, From the fact of obtaining the absolute, it can be directly related to the thought of Aristotle based on the maximum purpose obtained in this life, which for him is happiness, obtained thanks to prudence, being happiness a happiness a Activity of the soul according to perfect virtue (referring to prudence), but prudence is again a virtue that we can have thanks to the wonderful gift that God gave us all equally and with which we are undoubtedly more happy, bone right.
How were we rational after all? Or how was a gift really?
Rare would be that, with the appearance of Aristotle, he did not mention his Catholic clone. Saint Thomas again introduces a sense of ultimate end for man, which is given thanks to the reason that God gave us, given "because man and other rational creatures reach the last end knowing and loving God" (sum of Theology, p. 14) The single reading of this appointment makes us impossible to relate to Kant, however for Saint Thomas he had a very strict moral point, evaluating his actions under three precepts based on the doctrine of God, and that these actions should be good for Being able to be in a goodwill delivered by the gift of reason.
It is curious as exactly the same four words are always repeated; reason, will, ultimate end, and more implicitly, behavior in society. The three authors name that as we are right, we have a will and therefore we have an end, which is obtained through life in conjunction with other human beings, however it is really absurd to think that we have an end in our lives being so insignificant , perhaps the fact that we are the only ones with the gift of reason on this planet makes us believe special, of course we are special but in the good sense of morals raised by Kant, it is only a matter of going to a population and a sector like Dehesa to see difference.
What moral are behind houses so large that there are 10 elephants inside? What good customs are under people who make a vagabon dance per 100 pesos? For Kant, the fact that the action is good for its intention is imperative, but let’s face it there are no good intentions, except for our own desires that are reflected in our actions, what will people who live with everything they can dream of?, What a maximum of will they have when they already have everything?
Conclusions.
Kant says that the actions are good not because of their result, but for their intention and that it is an absolute duty to find a purpose, of course there is no sense that we have an end, I feel that when I write these lines I am It falls part of my reason to live, our absolute duty comes for reason, morality comes for reason, the will comes for reason, everything bad comes from that reason, people trying to discover something unattainable is absurd, an action that It is done to get something that you will be completely satisfied is false, we are insatiable and there is nothing absolute in our understanding, we are only immoral human that believe the story that we are something together.
Leave feedback