Respond to TWO of the following questions:
  1. Kant thinks that human beings can know something, like mathematical truth, before experiencing it. Why does he think that? Give an example of what he means. Do you agree or disagree with him? Why?
  2. According to Kant, one knows something only as it appears to a human being, but the thing in itself lies beyond human consciousness. Is there something behind experience that we cant know? Why or why not? If not, which alternative philosophical standpoint is preferable? Explain your answer.
  3. Kant states that only deeds done from duty apart from inclination have moral worth. The implication is that if one gives to charity because one feels sorry for the poor, one has not acted rationallyand therefore morallyfrom an understanding of ones duty, but from inclination. Do you agree with Kant that moral deeds should not consider ones feelings but only respect for the moral law? Why or why not? Explain your answer with an example.
  4. If you continually do your duty from respect from the moral law, youll be morally good. If youre perfectly moral, youll be happy. But happiness wont come in this lifetime because you wont be perfectly moral in this lifetime. If striving for moral perfection isnt to be in vain, it is rational to believe in God as the guarantor of happiness in a future life. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?
Note: To earn full credit for this graded discussion, post at least two times. First, post your own thoughts. This post should be substantial (containing at least 150-200 words). Next, respond to the post of another student. Remember to follow the rules of netiquette. Be polite, professional, and thoughtful. This post should contain at least 50-100 words.

Is this the question you were looking for? Place your Order Here