Philosophical Dialogue: Socrates and Kant - Paper Example

Socrates: Kant, I hear and I have read about your arguments about ethics. Your version of thinking about ethics seems to be different from my version. Can you briefly explain to me about deontology ethics according to your reasoning and argument?

Kant: Well, my friend and fellow scholar, I have tried to reason out about ethics and indeed my version seems to be different from yours. I do respect your reasoning about ethics and I would first appreciate your effort since it through your writings, insights I also developed an insight in this field of philosophy. Back to your question; I being one of the deontologists, we believe that morality is a matter of duty.Implies that we have moral duties to carry out things that are right and we also have moral duties not to do things that seem to be wrong. Therefore, we are guided by our morals in every action through determining the consequences of the action; when the consequences are harsh, then we have a duty to refuse to do it. However, when the consequences of the action seem to be productive, then we are also obligated to do it.

Socrates: You mean as deontologist seems you have two ways in which you can act on a particular issue?

Kant: Yes of course; most theories as deontologists identify two levels of duties. The first duty is known as the general duties we normally have towards anyone. In most cases, the general duties are of prohibition in nature. Examples of these prohibition duties are; do not steal, do not murder, do not lie and so on. However, some of the prohibition duties are positive and they include; sympathizing with less fortunate, helping those ones in need; Nursing the sick helping the poor and many more.

The second levels of the duties are the duties we have due to the particular individual or social interaction. For example, we say that if one promises, he/she has a duty of fulfilling the promise. We often have duties of in regard to our own actions thus; individuals have duties to keep their promises.It should be understood that for one to be taken to be someone who is morally upright, then one who has a duty to keep promises have also the duty of making such promises are kept. In other words, individuals sometimes tend to have duties of doing certain things but since their moral aspect is unbecoming.They do not get committed to fulfilling the duties. Now, this is what distinguishes between the morally upright person and an immoral person. Moreover, it also distinguishes the mature from the immature people.

Socrates: Yeah I see your reasoning, it quite in-depth and insightful. In your writings, we can notice that you dwelled on the subject of good without qualification. Can to-you please elaborate on this.

Kant: Yes my friend; I can say to act in a morally right way, an individual must act purely by beginning to with an argument and reasoning that the highest good must be both goods in itself and also be good without qualifications.

Socrates: What do you mean by that?

Kant: I mean something is taken to be good in itself when it is actually intrinsically good and good without qualifications. Sometimes, things or issues that are tho8ighght to be good for example, pleasure, perseverance, and intelligence sometimes fail to be good without qualifications or even intrinsically good. One can take an advantage for example for his, intelligence to misuse others, one can take advantage of the perseverance nature of other people to oppress and exploit them and also one can capitalize on the pleasure of inflicting other people with pain.Thus, when people take advantage of these things that are thought to be good to commit unethical acts, then such things become ethically worse.

Socrates: Now what is your entire summary of the whole argument of ethics?

Kant: Well; I can summarize this topic of ethics by stating that there is nothing in the world and even beyond the world that can possibly be brought about that can be called good without qualifications, apart from the goodwill.

Socrates: Thank you, young man, I can see the wisdom you took from my teachings; thank you again for being a good student. I know you actually want to know my reasoning about ethics in comparison of your deontological reasoning.

Kant; Yes, of course, you know you are the father of philosophy and all of my ideas and reasoning were shaped by your earlier writings. I want you to explore your reason for ethics as an ethical naturalist as stated in your writings.

Socrates: Yap I would be brief; I looked ethical from a different perspective from yours. I defined ethical naturalism as a meta-ethical doctrine that states that there are objective moral properties of which we tend to have empirical knowledge. However, these characteristics tend to be reducible to non-ethical or natural properties.These natural properties are; the pleasures and the needs. Therefore, ethical naturalisms can be termed as a kind of moral realism tends to assume cognitivism. However, it also goes a step further than ethical nonnaturalism. Ethical naturalisms hold that the meaning of these moral sentences can be displayed the natural properties without employing the ethical terms.

Kant: I get what you are saying. So you support the idea of ethics in the society? What things do you consider to be essential for good life?

Socrates: Good question, I consider two or three essentials of good life. First, an individuals happiness is elevated by doing what is right. In other words, when an individual or people practice their moral living by doing what is right, they boost their happiness. Such individuals are more satisfied with their life.However, individuals who do what they know is wrong, they always feel guilty of themselves and condemn themselves secretly hence, they reduce their individuals happiness. Therefore, it is good for people in the society to think of doing what is god so as to attain their happiness. In other words, doing the right thing and feeling happy are two natural things that lead to natural happiness.

Secondly, happiness is attaining when an individuals true utility is served. Happiness is exhibited only as a long-term consequence to the soul;. In other words, when individuals in the societies act truthfully without deceit, they are likely to achieve long-term happiness of the soul. Such individuals live fulfilled life, life without blame or regret.Thus, it is upon the individuals to work out to live truthful as a way of exercising ethical practices and they would attain happiness. Lastly, people in the society seek good but fail to attain this good just because of ignorance or in simple terms lack of knowledge on how to find what is good. When we lack the knowledge of being ethical, then it is obvious that we shall fail to find good.

Kant: Oooh that is a good explanation of the topic; I have realized where our reasoning meet. But I have really gotten insightful of reasoning about ethical naturalism. I have been able to learn the new way of perceiving things. Thank you very much, my fellow scholar.

Socrates: Thank you too, my student; really enjoyed the discussion and thus you have enabled me to understand how young generation thinks and view issues. Thank you very much.