In this article, Rawls starts out by stating the differences between classical philosophy and modern moral philosophy. He explains that by classical philosophy he means that of ancient Greece and by modern moral philosophy he means in the period of time from 1600 to 1800 (1). Rawls then goes to summarize both the classic and modern philosophies. He concludes that the Greeks “focused on the idea of the highest good as an attractive ideal, as the reasonable pursuit of our true happiness”(4). The main difference in the two philosophies came from three major developments in the time period. These developments were the Reformation, the development of the modern state, and the development of modern science (5). With the aspect of religion, there were five very important differences. In modern moral philosophy, Christianity was an authoritative religion, it was a religion of salvation, it was doctrinal, it was a religion of priests, and it was an expansionist religion (6). These five factors, along with the constant branching and wars during the Reformation, changed the question that was raised by the Greeks which was simply how to live, to the question of how to live with people from a different religion (8).
Later in the article, Rawls outlines Kant’s thoughts on science and religion. Kant is not troubled by, “The diversity and conflicts between our moral judgments”(15). Kant believes in what he calls “common human reason”(15) in which everyone judges in roughly the same way. He goes as far as to say that even the philosopher cannot have moral principles different than those of ordinary human reason. For Kant, science and morals are on equal grounds with one another. Both science and morals are forms of reason, one is theoretical and the other is pure, practical reason (15). I would agree with Kant in the respect that both science and morals are both forms of reason. Science is the theoretical form and morals are the pure or practical form. Following Kant’s idea of “common human reason,” this makes sense. The sciences are areas where theories are formed and tested. Said theories are always challenged and tested and reaffirmed. This is all done within human reason. Morals can also be a form of reason, though not so far as in all the speculating done within the theoretical reason. With morals, a person acts practically. These actions are pure forms or reason expressing themselves without needing to be put in theory and tested out beforehand.
5 comments:
Really enjoyed reading your blog post, and I think that it brings up an interesting perspective of the history of philosophy. There is clearly a great gap in between the two branches of philosophy, and it begs the question of what, if anything, was stopping people from being as inquisitive as they were during these productive eras.
I have to say that I cannot agree with the the author's outline of Kant's view on science and morals. It seems almost illogical to me that something as concrete as science can be put on the same par as human reason and morals. What would Kant say about the matter in our modern scientific and technological age?
Thank you, and I agree. The article was quite informative on the history and how these idea came about. As for what Kant would say, I believe his opinion would remain the same, even in this day and age with modern technology. In Kant's head, science and moral are different from each other, but to rationalize it to himself, he finds a common ground. The ground in this case happens to be reason. With this basis, he can then equalize both science and morals without putting one over the other. Even in today's modern world, many people believe that the sciences, regardless of how progressive they may be, need to start going about their business in a more "moral" way. This includes things like stopping testing on animals or in some cases stopping testing that is dangerous for the environment. Even those these morals are different than what Kant would think, the basis is that to Kant, science is always based out of a theoretical reason while morals, to him at least, are always based out of a purer form of reason, and therefore, the two will always relate.
This is the wrong essay.
Both science and morals are forms of reason. Science is theoretical, using numbers and hard evidence to justify its logic. Morals are based in pure, practical form. These are both logical arguments. However, I feel that this post doesn’t address the reason behind religion. Governments are constructed to protect personal property and liberties (which are logical means to join together under one flag). Religion attempts for a similar goal, for example examine the Ten Commandments. They were rules to live by, logically constructed to promote the improvement of human society. How would Kant respond to this? More specific how would he classify religious logic and reason?
Post a Comment