The Dialectic
Descartes
Rationalism
1600s
Hume
Empiricism
1700s
Kant’s blend:
Form of
knowledge
(A priori) and
Content
(A posteriori)
Hegel’s Dialectic: Mechanism for
Progress
 Becomes an everlasting and continuous
building on ideas
 The strongest and most correct ideas
survive through the dialectic process
 The most rational and reasonable thinking
survives as history
Immanuel Kant
One smart Scottish-German Dude
Got Your Shades On?
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
 Son of Scottish
Good will hunting…
immigrant to Prussia
 A timely prof.
 Critique of Pure
Reason (1781) a
reply to Hume
 In Perpetual Peace
proposed a League of
Nations
Epistemology:
Empiricism and rationalism are
both partly right
 Hume
 Descartes
 And both are incomplete…
The Material of Knowledge and
the Form of Knowledge
 We derive information through the human
senses (material), but that information is seen
through a priori intuitions or preconditions in
the human mind (form)
The mind is not just passive, receiving
impressions….
a priori modes filter all
empirical info
 Like wearing glasses…info is shaped via lenses
 We have a “pure”( non-empirical) intuition of:
1. time and space
 For us to experience Hume’s succession
of experiences, a temporal-spatial
framework must pre-exist
Attributes of Pure Reason
 We also have preconditions or attributes
of pure reason:
1. relation:
the universe is a system of relationships,
connections
the law of causality
2. quantity
3. quality
4. actuality, possibility and necessity
(modality)
This epistemology means that we
assume that outside of us, there
is a thing in itself, but all we
know is our experience of the
thing to us.
Huh?
The Two Forms of Knowledge
Deutch ist gut fur dich!
 Noumenon – Das Ding an sich.
 Intuitively known
 Phenomenon – Das Ding an ich.
 Material of knowledge comes through
our senses
 Shaped by conditions in the human mind:
attributes of pure reason and intuition
Immanuel Kant
One smart Scottish-German Dude
Got Your Shades On?
Morality: Pursuit of the Good Will

Man has an inborn pursuit of moral law


An a priori attribute of reason, like the law
of causality or time and space
There are 3 possible motives for any
given action:
1. Self interest – being honest makes me
likeable and admired.
2. Inclination – be honest out of fear, avoidance
3. Duty – be honest because it’s right
 this is best motive: alignment with categorical imperative
But why Will and not Reason or
Empathy?
 “It is impossible to conceive of anything at
all in the world, or out of it, which can be
taken as good without qualification, except
a good will.” - Kant
 If one wills to be good, the good is in the
willing (not the rationalizing).
 Reason helps us form our good will, but
reason by itself does not make us happy
 Neither knowing nor feeling good is
enough
Deontological versus
Consequential Ethics
 Consequences: utilitarian choices
 Deontological: adhering to rights or duties
 Who gets the 6 seats in a lifeboat that can
only hold 9 people?
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
“I ought never to act in such a way
except that I would will my
choice to become a universal
law that would apply to all others
in my circumstance.”
Get in a Group: Formulate a
Maxim…
1. “Act as if the maxim of your action were
to become through your will a Universal
Law of Nature.”
2. Generalize it: Don’t make an exception
of yourself!
3. Test for conceptual and volitional
consistency.
4. Does it hold up?
Freedom comes from being able
to obey the moral law within
1. We are only free when we obey the law of
the categorical imperative.
2. We are free when we can will ourselves to
live by its dictates.
3. Many people are bound by their sensory
appetites or rationalizing reason.
 They choose to live by their desires and excuses
4. Their will is ineffective
5. Therefore, they are not free
 Hence, Kant’s ethical system is called a
duty ethics or good will ethics
When we attempt to understand
answers to ultimate
questions we get stuck. Why?
 Neither our senses nor our reason are
enough.
 Reason gets stuck between plausible
reasoned answers because there is
insufficient empirical evidence to fully
process the answer.
The ultimate question:
Does God exist?
 Descartes said the fact we, as imperfect
beings, have the concept of an infinite
perfect being means God must exist.
 Hume said we can’t perceive God, so we
don’t know…(but God’s likely a false
complex idea)
 What does Kant say?
God Kant Be?
Says Who?
 Ultimately, Intuition is the only true basis
we have for knowing God’s existence
 Non-empirical
 Non-rational
God as Practical Postulate
 Reason may not convince you and that’s
not surprising since God is too big to
“prove.” But, practically speaking…
1. We must postulate God in order to rationally
practice morality.
2. If goodness and happiness (the summon
bonum) can’t be achieved here by all, that is
unjust.
3. God must exist in order to aid justice and the
pursuit of morality: not the other way around!
4. Also, our concept of perfect goodness requires
a perfectly good will. That good will is God.
Immortality as Reasonable Postulate
Assumption: Summum Bonum is a state of complete virtue
and happiness
1. We can’t conceive of virtue without a good will behind
it…
2. A good will is necessary
3. The consummation of a good will is a good will for all.
4. A virtuous person (good will) is not often able to
achieve happiness;
5. While it is correct to pursue goodness, happiness is not
always a clear by-product.
6. Dictates of reason require immortality to reach
summum bonum: complete goodness and happiness
for all.