Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that believed in a set of moral requirements that he called the "Categorical Imperative". Kant believed that immorality was irrational, that you should live life doing your duty for others. He believed that people should aid one another because it is their duty to do so, and not to act on emotions which he would deem as immoral. The Categorical Imperative concept was developed in his book
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, published in 1785. This book outlined and evaluated the motivations behind actions.
In Kant's perspective morality can be summed up entirely by reason. This imperative is absolute. It can be applied to anything that requires an action.
Kant's opinions and beliefs are most certainly black and white. Which can be applied to the argument of whether people are inherently good vs. evil.
While i applaud Kant for having a set opinion on morality, I do not necessarily agree with his views on morality. Yes we should help others and do our best to uphold whatever moral doctrine or faith that we believe in but i do not agree that we can only act on reason. Emotions aren't always bad when helping someone, and it certainly doesn't deem the action immoral. I would argue that it possibly helps you connect with the individual that you are helping.
The idea to post about Kant came from my cousin. He informed me about some deeper philosophical significance to the show
Breaking Bad.
"The main character of breaking bad is acting beyond good and evil which is a theme of Fredrick Nietsche. He is also a pragmatist in the sense of identifying the situation and finding the best solution. He is not considering whether his behavior is good/evil or justified. He has transcended this concepts in order to find the best solution to support his family while he lives. Now, is his actions justified, no. Are they evil, yes. If 'evil' is the word you have to work with, then the consequences of his actions do not justify the means. The means being to save his family, but the long-term consequences are to ruin the lives of countless others by feeding into their addictions and ultimately destroying their lives. This problem is relative to the people involved. All questions are not considered from the actors point of view b/c all he wants to do is save his family, so he is beyond the principals of your questions. In a conceptual sense his is wrong in the sense of breaking the law and bad in the sense of what he is doing to other peoples lives to save his own family."
-Cousin that might be named if I get permission!
When reading this I believe that yes, what Walter White did was wrong, yes his motivations might have been positive but he did it in the wrong way. In a way the show glorified what Walt was doing and while I still love the show, in reality it would not be a
good solution.
I believe that Kant thought that people were inherently evil, which I do not agree with. He even went on to say in his book
Religion within the Boundaries of True Reason that he thought human nature was "radically evil".
I can't agree. I believe there is evil in the world, but in my experience I have witnessed more good natured people than I have evil. Still that is just my experience. There are probably countless others that have experienced the exact opposite. I must say though in my belief (coming from my personal situation) people are not "radically evil".
People Kant be moral?-False people Kan :)
