Humans are inherently bad philosopher
Speaker Geeks! - Philosophical Debates: Are Humans Inherently Good or Evil? Showing 1-28 of 28
Are Humans Inherently Good or Evil? - Nethra Pillai - [email protected]
The Concept of Evil
Religion was an unavoidable topic for Kant since it addresses the ultimate questions of metaphysics and morality. For, as he presents it in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and elsewhere, the universal moral law does not entirely depend upon demonstrating the existence of God, but rather upon reason though he believes that its source cannot be divorced from the concept of God. Obedience to the moral law, of which Kant believes religion should be an example, appears to be an expectation that is neither universally nor willingly practiced. What is notable about the first two chapters of Religion is that he addresses this phenomenon in a manner that his Enlightenment predecessors had not: The failure of human moral agents to observe the moral law is symptomatic of a character or disposition Gesinnung that has been corrupted by an innate propensity to evil , which is to subordinate the moral law to self-conceit. This reformation of character ultimately serves as the ground for moral agents within an ethical commonwealth , which, when understood eschatologically, is the Kingdom of God on Earth. It not only harkened back to an older Augustinian account of human nature, but also affirmed a propensity to evil within human nature using his apparatus of practical reason.
The subject of Immanuel Kant's philosophy of religion has received more attention in The presence of moral evil in human beings can be explained by their.
english in medicine a course in communication skills
The answer depends on what you think of modern politics
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is best known for his political thought, and deservedly so. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to contemporary politics. His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue. Otherwise what awaits us is a "state of nature" that closely resembles civil war — a situation of universal insecurity, where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but impossible. One controversy has dominated interpretations of Hobbes. Does he see human beings as purely self-interested or egoistic?