User:Anarchia/Sandbox
He wrote, for example,
"Now it is a wholly different thing to be truthful
from duty and to be so from apprehension of injurious consequences. In the first case, the very notion of the action already implies a law for me; in the second case, I must first look about elsewhere to see what results may be combined with it which would affect myself. For to deviate from the principle of duty is beyond all doubt wicked; but to be unfaithful to my maxim of prudence may often be very advantageous to me, although to abide by it is certainly safer.[1]
Kant's ethics emphasises the importance of duty To act in the morally right way, they must make sure that the way they act does not conflict with the categorical imperatives. They have this duty simply because acting in this way is a duty for all rational agents, and the duty exists no matter what the consequences of the action.
According to Kant, the actual consequences of actions are not what determines the rightness or wrongness of the action. Rightness or wrongness is, instead, determined by the intention and reasoning of the person carrying out the action. So, it is not just important that someone acts according to the categorical imperatives, it is important that they do so for the right reason.
The categorical imperatives may be thought by consequentialists to limit the sense in which an action can bring about good consequences.[2] Kant famously argued that it is always wrong to lie, because lying violates all three forms of the categorical imperative. So, even when a murderer comes to your door and asks you where someone is hiding, you have only two ethical options, telling the truth or refusing to answer. Immanuel Kant
- Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
- Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
- Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
For Reason
Reason and emotion or passion[edit]
The relationship between reason and emotion or passion is considered in a number of different fields, including literature, philosophy and psychology.
Reason and emotion in philosophy[edit]
Reason and emotion in ancient philosophy[edit]
In literature, reason is often opposed to emotions or feelings, and desires, drives or passions. Others see reason as the servant or tool of these things -- the means of sorting out our desires and then getting what we want. Some would say however that many of the key philosophers of history (e.g. Plato, Rousseau, Hume, Nietzsche) have combined both views - making rational thinking not only a tool of desires, but also something which is itself desired, not only because of its usefulness in satisfying other desires.
At the same time, reason sometimes seems to come into conflict with some desires (even while not being in conflict with others) that, at the very least, certain emotions are separate from reason. Only in humans, choices are sometimes made on the basis of an association of ideas which is an artificially constructed model, rather than an un-inspected association based on raw experience, and this “feels” different from when one is won over by a passion supported solely by intuition. The opposite is also unique – we sometimes feel that a passion has won over our decision-making “unjustly”, despite having lost its argument, or perhaps not even having been a subject of argument before the action took place.
Reason and emotion in psychology[edit]
Reason and emotion in psychotherapy[edit]
Modern psychology has much to say on the role of emotions in belief formation. Deeper philosophical questions about the relation between belief and reality are studied in the field of epistemology, which forms part of the philosophical basis of science, a branch of human activity that specifically aims to determine (certain types of) truth that are not dependent on the emotions of the researchers.
Samaritan's dilemma[edit]
 |
The Samaritan's dilemma refers to a problem that can arise when people try to help other people who are in need. It is often described as a problem that arises for charitable donations. One example of this use is the claim that giving help the poor can give them incentives to continue in behavior that keeps them in poverty: A soup kitchen provides free food for those who need it. However, some may come to rely on this charity, rather than seeking a job, in order to get food. However, the donors could be governments, parents, philanthropists or any other individuals or organisations that have money or other goods. The recipients can be any individuals or groups that lack money or goods. can face when trying to.
The term was first used by James Buchanan in 1977 [3] Buchanan explained the dilemma as a form of the prisoner's dilemma. A Samaritan, a person concerned about the welfare of others is trying to decide how to act when he becomes aware of other people in need. The Samaritan has to decide whether or not to help. The potential recipient, who is in need of assistance, has to decide how much effort he will put into getting help.
| Recipient puts in high effort |
Recipient puts in low effort | |
|---|---|---|
| Samaritan does not help |
2,2 | 1,1 |
| Samaritan helps |
4,3 | 3,4 |
See also[edit]
References[edit]
Further reading[edit]
- Gibson, Clark C. (2005) The Samaritan's Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.