(philosophically articulated) moral law. To support the first proposition —namely only actions done “from duty,” rather than merely in conformity with duty, have genuine moral worth and give evidence of a good will—Kant reviews four thought experiments about moral motivation of characters (i.e., the shop-keeper, the unfortunate man who no longer relishes life, the person who benefits others in distress, and the man with gout). Explain the thought experiment and what Kant gleans from it regarding the motivations of good will and inclination ( Neigung ), and the moral value of the person’s action. 4. What are the three propositions of morality that, Kant says, lead us to the (philosophically articulated) moral law that I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law ? Do you agree with Kant that these propositions reflect what we ordinarily think about morality? 5. Kant claims that we cannot get our concept of morality from examples, not even the example of Jesus Christ (or Socrates or Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr.). Explain why Kant makes this claim. Do you agree or disagree. How would you defend your answer? 6. Explain the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. What sort(s) of imperatives—i.e., problematic, assertoric, or apodictic—does morality contain, and why? 7. Briefly describe the three versions of the categorical imperative in Chapter 2. What is the relation among them?
8. What are the four specific duties that Kant discussed? Explain Kant’s derivations of at least one of them from the various formulations of the categorical imperative. Are any of those derivations persuasive? 9. Does Kant’s categorical imperative(s) help us think about why rape is wrong and what, if any, moral failures are associated with the stories suggested by the following? - stone-faced-silence-on-sexual-assaults/article_339f1772-336b-5651- ae0f-2eda2e6f2b47.html
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read both pages?