Happiness- Kant and Epicurus-

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By SalmaMoutaouakil
Words 2373
Pages 10
Name: Salma Moutaouakil Date: November, 16, 2009 Happiness: Kant and Epicurus

Happiness has always been a topic that attracted the attention of many great thinkers in the world. In fact, it is a very interesting topic for two main reasons. First, because it is one of the most important issue that concerns Human’s life and one of the crucial factor that determine his existence in the world, because it is commonly agreed that the greatest achievement of mortals is the seeking of happiness. Second, and the most intrigued part is that it makes in confrontation Human’s instinct and Human’s reason trying to figure out and to analyze which one of them has the bigger chance and potential to contribute in the achievement of happiness. In this context, two different perspectives raised trying to encounter this concept. The first approach is the Eudemonist theory which his followers claims and believe in the capacity of moral actions to achieve happiness. In the other side, there is the classical point of view that is supported by many philosophers such as Mill and Kant that reject the previous hypothesis and argue that happiness is more likely to be attend through following natural instincts rather than reason because they are from two different nature and also they emphasize the fact that reason has another purpose more important and more valuable than happiness. Therefore, it can be deduced that these two approaches are different from each others in their attempt to give a sense to happiness. Epicurus argues that happiness is in the satisfaction of both the soul and the body. In order to be more accurate, according to Epicurus, an individual has to seek the health of the body as well as the peace of mind in order to enjoy happiness. However, according to Kant, reason has nothing to deal with this purpose in the way that it might be an obstacle to happiness; in the…...

Similar Documents

Kant

...leads Kant towards the critique of pure reason arguing that without a goodwill one can’t even be worthy of being happy. Kant introduces goodwill, treating people as means rather than ends and doing the right thing for the right reason. Making a distinction between science and knowledge and eliminating common sense on a route to the philosophical, Kant defines reason as reason a practical faculty to influence will and also being essential to will. Kant argument in the Groundwork focuses upon the basic idea of what makes a good person good. It is the possession of a will that is a way determined by, or makes decision based of moral law. This goodwill is supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value. Kant believes we value it without limitation or qualification. Formulated by pure reason, the categorical imperative according to Kant underscores his argument. The value of a good will thus cannot be that it secures certain valuable ends, whether of our own or of others, since there value is entirely conditional on our having and maintaining a good will. Kant’s categorical imperative argues that ones actions should be done from duty in order to obtain true moral worth. It is not the result of ones actions but rather means of that duty that leads humanity to happiness.......

Words: 597 - Pages: 3

Kant

...treating each other the way they would want to be treated which is known as the “Golden Rule”. In this article respect with regards to Kant’s theory takes respect from a casual exchange such as a polite “ excuse me” or “ thank you” to the very intents of the heart of persons in any exchange. The core argument in this case is the subject matter of whether or not companies treat their employees as a means to their end or if companies treat employees as an end in and of themselves. Most business’s look at their employees as resources used to accomplish task needed to generate revenues for the company‘s stockholders. In order to understand the issue Kantians have with this business viewpoint one must first understand what Kant considers respect. According to Kant human beings have dignity which cannot be bought. He also believes that human beings are not exchangeable. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative says “Act so that you treat humanity whether, in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. (Norman E. Bowie “Business Ethics” pg. 67-68) His views regarding human dignity poses a threat to the way businesses operate because from a business standpoint, machinery and humans are one in the same and whichever can meet the objectives of the company more efficiently the company will choose. In this article, Bowie brought forth several points of view in an effort to pin point whether there is a problem with the way......

Words: 390 - Pages: 2

Kant

...November 7, 2013 PHI 105 Reading Response #4 Kant In Immanuel Kant’s The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, deontological or the right/logical thing to do is laid out through different categorical imperatives. Kant believes logically there is always a right thing to do. There are obligations that must be done without looking at consequences and only looking at that specific moment in time to decide whether or not good motivations are being practiced. I think that acting in the right way at one moment in time is difficult to achieve without looking at consequences, the end result should be taken into account otherwise people could be making vital mistakes in their life. Kant states that every person has a duty and that your responsibilities cannot look at the consequences, you must only act on the right thing to do first. In class we discussed the idea of euthanasia, for example if someone asks you to mercy kill them then technically that would be your new duty, at least in the eyes of Kant. You cannot think whether or not this will ease them of their pain and end their life, this would be looking at the consequences. According to Kant, if someone asks you to do something and you agree to it that is now something you must uphold to. This is clearly an example of not looking at the consequences, but I think the end result should be taken into account here. Living in that moment and performing mercy killing would have a terrible end result, there are so many other......

Words: 599 - Pages: 3

Immanuel Kant and Hume, David

...PhilPapers Bibliography Kant and Hume on Morality First published Wed Mar 26, 2008; substantive revision Sun Aug 12, 2012 The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is often contrasted with that of David Hume (1711–1776). Hume's method of moral philosophy is experimental and empirical; Kant emphasizes the necessity of grounding morality in a priori principles. Hume says that reason is properly a “slave to the passions,” while Kant bases morality in his conception of a reason that is practical in itself. Hume identifies such feelings as benevolence and generosity as proper moral motivations; Kant sees the motive of duty—a motive that Hume usually views as a second best or fall back motive—as uniquely expressing an agent's commitment to morality and thus as conveying a special moral worth to actions. Although there are many points at which Kant's and Hume's ethics stand in opposition to each other, there are also important connections between the two. Kant shared some important assumptions about morality and motivation with Hume, and had, early in his career, been attracted to and influenced by the sentimentalism of Hume and other British moralists. The aim of this essay is not to compare Hume and Kant on all matters ethical. Instead, we examine several key areas of ethics in which we can reasonably see Kant as responding to or influenced by Hume, or in which comparisons between their theories are particularly interesting. There is more here about Kant than Hume but we......

Words: 24372 - Pages: 98

Kant

...alternative to utilitarianism. Since utilitarian theory downplays the moral significance of such important elements as respect, human dignity, individual rights, and minority protection, an alternative moral theory might b needed. [Utilitarianism, and consequential theories in general, do not accord an intrinsic and incommensurable value to any element - in other words, nothing - not even human dignity or even human life - is to be valued as morally good or morally valuable in itself and isolated from comparison, or weighing, against other goods. In utilitarianism, in particular, the conversion of all things is to happiness or pleasure or utility or preferences; in this way, everything has a common denominator - and this makes it possible to have a ready-made formular for assessment of what one should do morally [act in such a way as to maximize the overall happiness or happiness of the greatest possible number]; the down-side is that nothing - not even life or rights or human dignity - is to be kept out of the utilitarian calculus. Although utilitarianism is handy when it comes to tough cases and moral dilemmas - it has ample scope and range of cases it can handle in its own way - it is rather counter-intuitive in its insistence that even what we generally hold as the most morally valuable things are just numbers in a calculus. Also, since the greatest number prevails, this theory is not sensitive to the needs of 'permanent' minorities. Kant's theory is on the other......

Words: 2496 - Pages: 10

Kant

...reason. It is important to note that Kant began a new way of looking at knowledge. He believed that we could know the world through reason in a prior synthetic way. This was a complete change from how the world had been view previously and was known as Kant’s Copernican revolution. In essence Kant believed in two separate worlds of knowledge: noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. The noumenal world is the world as it truly is without being observed. It is fundamentally unknowable because the act of observation changes the very thing that we observe. It is as though human beings have a specific set of spectacles that cannot be taken off and like the proverbial rose tinted ones they change our perception of the world around us. This personalised view of the universe is the phenomenal world. However, what is key to explaining Kant’s moral argument is the fact that reason is the tool that can be used to know the true nature of the universe as it does not and cannot change. Kant’s moral argument focuses on reason, good will, duty and the notion that we ought to strive towards moral perfection. It begins with the claim of two things that have him in awe: the starry heavens above; and the moral law within. This moral law for Kant was universal and objective. An example of this might be seen in the wide scale agreement that murder or torture is wrong. There seems to be agreement across cultures that certain actions are intrinsically wrong. This, for Kant, suggests that there is a......

Words: 2616 - Pages: 11

Kant

...We tend to make flawed judgements both intentionally and unintentionally in our lives that we later regret and may even come to realization that they were morally incorrect. In order for us to make moral judgments upon our actions, Immanuel Kant provides a guideline for which actions are morally commendable in his text, “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. He believes that an action is morally right when it is motivated by duty alone. Kant introduces the concept of rational beings, in which he defines it as beings with the capacity to act in accordance with the representations of laws or a will (4:412). According to Kant, we are considered to be imperfect rational beings, in which our rational capacities are influenced by various incentives, and therefore, we must be governed by a moral command that will tell us how to act accordingly with the law. In a broad sense, the law is equally valid for all rational beings, and ought to follow is what Kant refers to as the “moral law” (4:227). And the moral command can exist in two forms, either hypothetical or categorical, but only one of which is ideal for the purpose of the moral (4:412). Hypothetical imperative tells us to exercise our wills in respect of our desire for personal ends, and it follows a form: “if you want achieve a goal A, you ought to do B”. For instance, if you want to pass the chemistry exam, then you ought to study for it. Although hypothetical imperative can be universally valid, it cannot be a moral...

Words: 1213 - Pages: 5

In Favor of Kant

...In Favor Of Kant 3/17/13 As per reading this assignment, one can already tell how complicated the situation is. How can I prevent an upheaval in my town by not finding the actual murderer but framing an innocent homeless man who is oblivious to the entire situation prior to entering the town? How can this be justified? Should the idea of framing someone innocent even be thought of? Having two philosophers in mind, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, I immediately distinguish the theories and arguments and come to a conclusion which I think will justify this difficult case. I shall argue in favor of Immanuel Kant that that the homeless man should not be arrested and framed and why Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism doesn’t apply to this case. Immanuel Kant observed the world around him and realized that everyone despite different cultures or religions obeyed a specific kind of moral law. For Kant, an action can only be correct, if it is the taken out of duty. He believed that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they act on moral duty. We all have a duty, and those duties should obey the supreme principal which is the categorical imperative. These are duties that we ought to do because they are unconditional commands. The universal law formulation explains that one should act on maxim through which can become a universal law in nature if it applies to each and every person in society. Everyone should conform to an...

Words: 854 - Pages: 4

Kant Theory

...Section One In section one, Kant argues from common sense morality to the supreme principle of morality, which he calls the categorical imperative. Kant thinks that uncontroversial premises from our shared common sense morality, and analysis of common sense concepts such as ‘the good’, ‘duty’, and ‘moral worth’, will yield the supreme principle of morality, namely, the categorical imperative. Kant’s discussion in section one can be roughly divided into four parts: (1) The good will (2) The teleological argument. (3) The three propositions regarding duty and (4) The categorical imperative. The Good Will Kant thinks that, with the exception of the good will, all goods are qualified. By qualified, Kant means that those goods are good insofar as they presuppose or derive their goodness from something else. Take wealth as an example. Wealth can be extremely good if it is used for human welfare, but it can be disastrous if a corrupt mind is behind it. In a similar vein, we often desire intelligence and take it to be good, but we certainly would not take the intelligence of an evil genius to be good. The good will, by contrast, is good in itself. Kant writes, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because its volition, that is, it is good initself . . . .” (4:394) The precise nature of the good will is subject to scholarly debate. The Teleological Argument Kant believes that a......

Words: 4313 - Pages: 18

Kant & Mill

...Kant & Mill Kant and Mill were two philosophers known and recognized for their moral integrity, merit, and their contributions to society through philosophical beings. Kant and Mills perspectives are alike; yet differ, in a variety set of ways. Through an actual real life event, I will describe how their philosophical theories would be demonstrated and the consequences of those actions according to the choice that is being ultimately made. Being that they are philosophers, who has the correct theory and which theory should the world abide by? The great philosopher Kant stated that “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will it become a universal law.” This statement is the categorical imperative of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Another way to describe this philosophical concept is by stating that good will should be good in itself regardless of the obstacles that may interfere with the end results of an action. Kant utilizes some space throughout his moral philosophy to argue that good will should merely depict good intentions even if the conveyer is victimized. Lets get deeper in Kant’s ethical theory. Actions that are being done only because of initial duty are morally good in relation to their maxims, the subjective principles of choice. Duty, according to Kant, “is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.” The law is the objective principle of choice. So, for Kant, for a maxim to be morally good it must conform to a universal......

Words: 1631 - Pages: 7

Kant

... Immanuel Kant Life 1. Immanuel Kant lived all his 80 years (1724- 1804) in the small provincial town of Königsberg in East Prussia. His parents belonged to the religious sect known as Pietists. His religious upbringing influenced his life and philosophy. 2. Kant entered the University of Königsberg were he studied the classics, physics, and philosophy. a. He was impressed by the advancements in learning made by science, particularly that of Newton. b. The dominant philosophy being taught at the University was Continental Rationalism, particularly that of Leibniz. 3. Kant’s life was remarkably unremarkable. He traveled little, and he had no notable political connections. He was known most for his meticulous, if not eccentric, behavior. Nevertheless, he was also known for being a brilliant thinker, writer, and lecturer. His most important writings include: Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Principles of Metaphysics and Morals, Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgment, Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason, and Perpetual Peace. A. The Shaping of Kant’s Problem 1. The major philosophical systems of his time, Rationalism and Empiricism, seemed to Kant inadequate to explain the two major issues which he articulated in his famous statement: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing......

Words: 4837 - Pages: 20

Aristotle and Epicurus

...Aristotle and Epicurus “We should not view the young man as happy, but rather the old man whose life has been fortunate.” This quotation is from Epicurus. Epicurus tried to find the key of happiness as did Aristotle. Although they have different theories of happiness, they both agreed on the idea that all human actions aim to reach complete happiness. Happiness is something that can be defined differently by each individual.  Every person would have a different idea on how we reach happiness. For Aristotle, complete happiness comes through fulfilling human function well and this can be provided by practicing virtuous acts. On the other hand, Epicurus supports the idea that presence of pleasure and lack of pain can conduct us to complete happiness. I shall argue that Epicurus and Aristotle have different ideas but they both aim towards a final good, which is happiness. As two different ethical theories, they both have weakness’ and strengths that this paper aims to show. Aristotle defines happiness as “something you seek for its own sake, whereas you seek all other goods ultimately for the sake of happiness” (Aristotle’s Ethics: The Theory of Happiness). This shows us that happiness is a final good that every individual aims to reach. Aristotle supports the idea that everybody must fulfill their function well enough to reach complete happiness and a fulfilled life is found in those who practice virtuous acts (Boyce). To understand exactly what Aristotle’s philosophy aims to......

Words: 1501 - Pages: 7

Kant

...Amy Vu Philosophy 205 May 14, 2016 Essay Assignment Kant Kant was one of the most influential philosophers in Western philosophy. His works contributed in whether or not we call any philosophy based on experience empirical, if we call it pure philosophy if it sets its principles based on priori principles, or any form of pure philosophy that is formal, logic. However, if logic were known to be only in specific objects of understanding this pure philosophy would be called metaphysics. He based a large amount of his writing on the question, “What can we know?” and through that, he stated, “our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural empirical world. It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics” (McCormick). He believes that the mind is limiting us to only the empirical realm of space and time. In Kant’s view in ethnics, he states that the sole reason that gives the action moral worth is not actually the outcome once achieved but it is the motive behind the action. He argues that the mind is a blank slate that we would write our experience by experiencing the empirical world. That motive which causes that action arises from the universal principles of reason. Kant claims that only actins done from duty have moral worth, which is true because in his writings, morality is something that only rational beings are able to preform these principles because they are rational. “Everything in......

Words: 1733 - Pages: 7

Happiness

...Happiness is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “ A state of well being or contentment”. Many philosophers believe that all humans desire to reach this goal of happiness. However the best way to achieve this state has been pondered and argued for thousands of years. Aristotle believed that happiness is “ the activity of the soul expressing itself as virture”, and that without living a virtuous life happiness is unattainable. Three philosophers Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant all agreed to Aristotle’s belief that virtue is necessary to attain happiness. It is the role of virtue in attaining happiness and what constitutes virtue or morality that is the issue that is disputed. Jeremy Bentham believed in the pleasure and pain principle which was that happiness was identified with pleasure and with an absence of pain. He believe all people should seek happiness and pleasure. Bentham identified 7 principles of pleasure 1. Its intensity2. Its duration.3. Its certainty or uncertainty.4. Its propinquity or remoteness.5. Its fecundity.6. Its purity.And one other; to wit:7. Its extent; To Bentham the extent meant to how many people this pleasure would reach. He was one of the fathers of Utilitarianism whose doctrine was “the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. This outlook was what constituted virtue for Bentham. If you did something that made a great number of people happy he considered this virtuous and in turn makes you happy. Also......

Words: 663 - Pages: 3

Epicurus

... Epicurus ethical beliefs start with what ethics is, the matter of choosing certain things and avoiding others. For example one should choose to help someone when they are being physically harmed, and on the other hand one should avoid eating rotten meat because it will make them sick. Epicurus believes that the ultimate goal in life is to achieve pleasure, which according to him is the absence of pain. When one is not experiencing pain, they must be experiencing pleasure. Unlike the Cyrenaics, Epicurus embraces both types of pleasures, katastematic and kinetic, in both the body and the soul. Katastematic pleasure is the pleasure experienced while being in a state, such as being free from pain, and free of annoyance. Kinetic pleasure is the pleasure experienced while performing an act, such as eating, or having sex. People who things such as steal, rape, and generally bad acts, are punished with physical pain and it is viewed by non followers of Epicurus as the worst form of pain. But since the body is only effected by the present Epicurus says that pain of the soul is the greatest form of pain since it is effected by the past the present and the future. A cut will only hurt until it is healed, a hurt feeling or a bad memory will continue to hurt into the future and the pain of the feeling will not fade with time. If pleasure is happiness, and pain is unhappiness, then happiness is the absence of pain. Epicurus says that one should not......

Words: 1315 - Pages: 6