Links+Examples

Links Examples [|You are magnicent] Top My paper My paper

Week 12

To understand Kant and his philosophy you first have to understand his categorical imperative, what it means and how it applies to real life. Kant’s describes his categorical imperative as such “The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e., as objectively necessary.”(Kant) He describes the categorical imperative as something that is not good in the specific situation, that would be hypothetical and subjective but is something that is always good because it's right to its right. Kant believes that the only objective good is the will to do good purely for good reasons and that moral laws/rules are derived from reason, and this is where are categorical imperatives come into place. He believed because moral laws came from reason then that meant that being rational beings meant there are laws that we have to follow because they are rational; like giving a child anesthe before a surgery because it’ll spare him the agonizing pain of surgery, it's just good just like you should follow these rules because they just make sense. He had multiple formulas or way of explaining the categorical imperative, but they seek to explain the same thing.

Now that I've explained how the categorical imperative works how does this apply to the question. Why does Kant hate lying? He hates it because it breaks the categorical imperatives. Kant hates it because it is irrational to lie. He believes that morals should be consistent not just for the individual but everyone. So if he was allowed to lie that means everyone had the same moral right to lie and not just selectively but all the time. If this were to happen then the concept of truth and lies would erode making your future lies and truth irrelevant because everyone would lie so no one could be trusted meaning that anything you were told couldn’t be trusted. He also states that peoples should never be used as means, that doing this is dehumanizing and by doing this you are never morally right. He also says that we should think what if we were the legislator of the universe giving use responsibility of shaping society's morals through our actions. And we should never cat solely for your self-interests.

I don’t agree with Kant I do recognize his reasoning that logically it wouldn’t make sense to lie if every

Week 13  If the leading scientist of today devised some way to look past our material world and discover a formula for immortality, I would not be disappointed. Why? The concept of immortality is only appealing to people because we aren't immortal. Once a person’s basic needs are meant, then it's only human nature to desire more, once we have what we need to live we want to live better. This desire gives rise to ambition, purpose and gives the finite time we have on earth meaning. While this may provide us with a goal, Schopenhauer says this is a fault of human nature he “Then again, how insatiable a creature is a man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire so that there is no end to the wishes of each will.” (The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Because of this purpose, we have the tools to give all of our time meaning and a sense of urgency because we don't have forever to accomplish our goals. If immortality were obtainable, then there would be no inherent urgency in our action, because we would have all the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. With the urgency gone what's there to do but exist.

 Once we have this immortality what's left, just to enjoy it? Life has no meaning. Its value is extrapolated from the fact that we don't have it Schopenhauer argues against the inherent meaninglessness of life by arguing we get bored in life “This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life -- the craving for which is the very essence of our being -- were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all”(The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Even if we were to live forever we would still be bound to the same constraints as any mortal person. To live a life that isn't riddled with suffering, we would have to bother ourselves with cleaning our living quarters, feed ourselves, and work to get money to live comfortably. In a sense, we would be trapped just like Sisyphus “The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its weight. They had thought for some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would be torture because of our conscious awareness of our fate. That for the rest of time we would be bound by these constraints the same way Sisyphus is to his boulder. “ If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would not liberate us from the struggles the life brings with it would only serve to trap us in them forever.

Something doesn’t become a prison until there's no way to escape and life doesn't become one until immortality becomes involved. If life lasted forever then all the joys and meaning would be lost because a big part of life is dying. Having immortality would take all the beautify and meaning out of life so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was discovered that there wasn't anything after death. Immortality is not appealing to me.

Week 13  If the leading scientist of today devised some way to look past our material world and discover a formula for immortality, I would not be disappointed. Why? The concept of immortality is only appealing to people because we aren't immortal. Once a person’s basic needs are meant, then it's only human nature to desire more, once we have what we need to live we want to live better. This desire gives rise to ambition, purpose and gives the finite time we have on earth meaning. While this may provide us with a goal, Schopenhauer says this is a fault of human nature he “Then again, how insatiable a creature is a man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire so that there is no end to the wishes of each will.” (The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Because of this purpose, we have the tools to give all of our time meaning and a sense of urgency because we don't have forever to accomplish our goals. If immortality were obtainable, then there would be no inherent urgency in our action, because we would have all the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. With the urgency gone what's there to do but exist.

 Once we have this immortality what's left, just to enjoy it? Life has no meaning. Its value is extrapolated from the fact that we don't have it Schopenhauer argues against the inherent meaninglessness of life by arguing we get bored in life “This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life -- the craving for which is the very essence of our being -- were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all”(The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Even if we were to live forever we would still be bound to the same constraints as any mortal person. To live a life that isn't riddled with suffering, we would have to bother ourselves with cleaning our living quarters, feed ourselves, and work to get money to live comfortably. In a sense, we would be trapped just like Sisyphus “The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its weight. They had thought for some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would be torture because of our conscious awareness of our fate. That for the rest of time we would be bound by these constraints the same way Sisyphus is to his boulder. “ If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would not liberate us from the struggles the life brings with it would only serve to trap us in them forever.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Something doesn’t become a prison until there's no way to escape and life doesn't become one until immortality becomes involved. If life lasted forever then all the joys and meaning would be lost because a big part of life is dying. Having immortality would take all the beautify and meaning out of life so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was discovered that there wasn't anything after death. Immortality is not appealing to me.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Week 13 <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> If the leading scientist of today devised some way to look past our material world and discover a formula for immortality, I would not be disappointed. Why? The concept of immortality is only appealing to people because we aren't immortal. Once a person’s basic needs are meant, then it's only human nature to desire more, once we have what we need to live we want to live better. This desire gives rise to ambition, purpose and gives the finite time we have on earth meaning. While this may provide us with a goal, Schopenhauer says this is a fault of human nature he “Then again, how insatiable a creature is a man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire so that there is no end to the wishes of each will.” (The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Because of this purpose, we have the tools to give all of our time meaning and a sense of urgency because we don't have forever to accomplish our goals. If immortality were obtainable, then there would be no inherent urgency in our action, because we would have all the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. With the urgency gone what's there to do but exist.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> Once we have this immortality what's left, just to enjoy it? Life has no meaning. Its value is extrapolated from the fact that we don't have it Schopenhauer argues against the inherent meaninglessness of life by arguing we get bored in life “This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life -- the craving for which is the very essence of our being -- were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all”(The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Even if we were to live forever we would still be bound to the same constraints as any mortal person. To live a life that isn't riddled with suffering, we would have to bother ourselves with cleaning our living quarters, feed ourselves, and work to get money to live comfortably. In a sense, we would be trapped just like Sisyphus “The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its weight. They had thought for some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would be torture because of our conscious awareness of our fate. That for the rest of time we would be bound by these constraints the same way Sisyphus is to his boulder. “ If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would not liberate us from the struggles the life brings with it would only serve to trap us in them forever.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Something doesn’t become a prison until there's no way to escape and life doesn't become one until immortality becomes involved. If life lasted forever then all the joys and meaning would be lost because a big part of life is dying. Having immortality would take all the beautify and meaning out of life so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was discovered that there wasn't anything after death. Immortality is not appealing to me.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Week 13 <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> If the leading scientist of today devised some way to look past our material world and discover a formula for immortality, I would not be disappointed. Why? The concept of immortality is only appealing to people because we aren't immortal. Once a person’s basic needs are meant, then it's only human nature to desire more, once we have what we need to live we want to live better. This desire gives rise to ambition, purpose and gives the finite time we have on earth meaning. While this may provide us with a goal, Schopenhauer says this is a fault of human nature he “Then again, how insatiable a creature is a man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire so that there is no end to the wishes of each will.” (The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Because of this purpose, we have the tools to give all of our time meaning and a sense of urgency because we don't have forever to accomplish our goals. If immortality were obtainable, then there would be no inherent urgency in our action, because we would have all the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. With the urgency gone what's there to do but exist.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> Once we have this immortality what's left, just to enjoy it? Life has no meaning. Its value is extrapolated from the fact that we don't have it Schopenhauer argues against the inherent meaninglessness of life by arguing we get bored in life “This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life -- the craving for which is the very essence of our being -- were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all”(The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Even if we were to live forever we would still be bound to the same constraints as any mortal person. To live a life that isn't riddled with suffering, we would have to bother ourselves with cleaning our living quarters, feed ourselves, and work to get money to live comfortably. In a sense, we would be trapped just like Sisyphus “The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its weight. They had thought for some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would be torture because of our conscious awareness of our fate. That for the rest of time we would be bound by these constraints the same way Sisyphus is to his boulder. “ If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would not liberate us from the struggles the life brings with it would only serve to trap us in them forever.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Something doesn’t become a prison until there's no way to escape and life doesn't become one until immortality becomes involved. If life lasted forever then all the joys and meaning would be lost because a big part of life is dying. Having immortality would take all the beautify and meaning out of life so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was discovered that there wasn't anything after death. Immortality is not appealing to me.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">one does it. But everyone doesn't lie all the time it seems to me that his reasoning for the categorical imperative is just cleverly worded thought experiments that he uses to advance his argument. I feel like those this Black and white mentality he has is naive. Because of the infinite human capacity to be bad, awful, and gross this world of truth would be just as validly and horrible as the world of lies. IT would change society to one that would never ask questions because if question meant absolute answers. Its human nature to preserve its self-interests so if we could only tell the truth, then society would change itself to protect itself in a scene In this reality of truth then the categorical imperative would be used against questions because it could be so easily used to abuse and take secrets away from people. It's so easy to manipulate his reasoning when it's so black and white in nature. I don't believe that lies are inherently bad; they have just as much capacity of being good as they are to be wrong, its morality depends on the reason behind them. They lie on a vast spectrum of that all thought morals and hopes lie on nothing is a 100% bad or good in every situation. A that having this mindset is stifling and dangerous.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Week 13 <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> If the leading scientist of today devised some way to look past our material world and discover a formula for immortality, I would not be disappointed. Why? The concept of immortality is only appealing to people because we aren't immortal. Once a person’s basic needs are meant, then it's only human nature to desire more, once we have what we need to live we want to live better. This desire gives rise to ambition, purpose and gives the finite time we have on earth meaning. While this may provide us with a goal, Schopenhauer says this is a fault of human nature he “Then again, how insatiable a creature is a man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire so that there is no end to the wishes of each will.” (The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Because of this purpose, we have the tools to give all of our time meaning and a sense of urgency because we don't have forever to accomplish our goals. If immortality were obtainable, then there would be no inherent urgency in our action, because we would have all the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. With the urgency gone what's there to do but exist.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"> Once we have this immortality what's left, just to enjoy it? Life has no meaning. Its value is extrapolated from the fact that we don't have it Schopenhauer argues against the inherent meaninglessness of life by arguing we get bored in life “This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life -- the craving for which is the very essence of our being -- were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all”(The Vanity Of Existence, Arthur Schopenhauer). Even if we were to live forever we would still be bound to the same constraints as any mortal person. To live a life that isn't riddled with suffering, we would have to bother ourselves with cleaning our living quarters, feed ourselves, and work to get money to live comfortably. In a sense, we would be trapped just like Sisyphus “The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its weight. They had thought for some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would be torture because of our conscious awareness of our fate. That for the rest of time we would be bound by these constraints the same way Sisyphus is to his boulder. “ If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory.” (CAMUS, Myth of Sisyphus). Immortality would not liberate us from the struggles the life brings with it would only serve to trap us in them forever.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Something doesn’t become a prison until there's no way to escape and life doesn't become one until immortality becomes involved. If life lasted forever then all the joys and meaning would be lost because a big part of life is dying. Having immortality would take all the beautify and meaning out of life so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it was discovered that there wasn't anything after death. Immortality is not appealing to me.

<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS,cursive; font-size: 190%;">Back to top