Modern And Continental Philosophy: Complete Both Parts

Modern And Continental Philosophycompleteboth Parts Of This Worksheet

Complete both parts of this worksheet. Part A involves creating a matrix with four categories: describe British empiricism and Hume’s skepticism about knowledge of the external world; explain how Kant’s theory allows for empirical knowledge; describe Kant’s categorical imperative; and explain Mill’s Utilitarianism. Provide at least four sentences or bullet points for each category, using appropriate APA citations from the course texts.

In the second part of the matrix, compare Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative with Mill’s Utilitarianism:

• Describe Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative and apply his guiding principle to a moral dilemma.
• Explain Mill’s greatest happiness principle and apply it to a moral dilemma.
• Reference the key philosophers involved in developing each moral theory.

Part B asks you to choose between two options:

1. Write a standard academic essay discussing the philosophy of Kierkegaard, Marx, or Nietzsche as a response to Kant’s or Mills' moral theory.
2. Write a dialogue involving one of these philosophers engaging with Kant or Mills, summarizing their philosophical response in 350-700 words.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of modern and continental philosophy involves understanding the evolution of epistemological and moral theories from empiricism through Kantian transcendental philosophy to utilitarian ethics. This essay examines the foundational ideas of British empiricism, Kant’s transcendental idealism, Kantian moral theory, and Mill's utilitarianism, highlighting their philosophical contributions and interrelations. It concludes with a comparative analysis and a reflective engagement with one philosopher’s response to Kantian or utilitarian moral insights.

British Empiricism and Hume’s Skepticism

British empiricism, primarily represented by Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, centers on the idea that knowledge arises from sensory experience. Locke posited that the human mind at birth is a tabula rasa, and all knowledge derives from experience through sensation and reflection (Locke, 1690). Berkeley extended empiricism by asserting that existence depends on perception, famously stating “to be is to be perceived,” which questions the independence of material objects (Berkeley, 1710). Hume further radicalized empiricism by arguing that human knowledge is limited to immediate impressions and ideas, ultimately leading to skepticism about causality, the external world, and the self (Hume, 1739).

Hume demonstrated that human reason cannot justify the necessary connection we assume between cause and effect, leading to skepticism about our ability to attain certain knowledge of the external world. He argued that beliefs about causality are habits of thought rather than rationally justified truths, which culminates in a form of philosophical skepticism (Hume, 1739). Hume’s skepticism exposes the limitations of empirical inquiry and challenges the rationalist and realist assumptions underlying previous philosophies, emphasizing the probabilistic and contingent nature of human knowledge.

Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and Overcoming Skepticism

Kant’s transcendental idealism builds upon Hume’s skepticism by proposing that while knowledge begins with experience, it is mediated by the structures of human cognition. Kant argued that our sensory experience is shaped by innate categories and forms of intuition, such as space and time (Kant, 1781). These mental faculties impose order on our perceptions, making empirical knowledge possible, but this knowledge is limited to phenomena—things as they appear to us—rather than noumena, or things-in-themselves (Kant, 1781).

By identifying the conditions under which experience and knowledge are possible, Kant responds to Hume’s skepticism: we can have empirical knowledge, but only within the bounds of human cognition. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” posits that objects conform to our perception rather than vice versa, thus establishing a framework where empirical science is possible without falling into skepticism. This synthesis allows us to attain reliable knowledge about the empirical world while acknowledging the limits of human understanding.

Kantian Moral Theory: The Categorical Imperative

Kant’s moral philosophy centers on the concept of the categorical imperative, a universal moral law derived from reason. The three main formulations include: (1) the Formula of Universal Law—act only according to maxims that can be consistently universalized; (2) the Formula of Humanity—treat humanity, whether in oneself or others, always as an end, never as a means only; and (3) the Kingdom of Ends—act according to maxims that could be legislated as universal laws in a moral community of rational agents (Kant, 1785).

Applying the categorical imperative, for example, to the moral dilemma of lying to protect someone’s feelings, Kant would argue that one should not lie because the maxim “it is acceptable to lie” cannot be consistently universalized without leading to a contradiction or moral chaos. Thus, Kant’s moral law emphasizes duty and the importance of acting according to principles that respect rationality and autonomy.

Mill’s Utilitarianism and the Greatest Happiness Principle

Mill’s utilitarianism builds on the earlier utilitarian ideas of Jeremy Bentham, emphasizing that actions are morally right insofar as they promote happiness or pleasure and morally wrong if they produce the opposite (Mill, 1863). The greatest happiness principle asserts that moral actions are those that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering for the greatest number of people.

For example, in a moral dilemma involving resource allocation in healthcare, Mill would argue that prioritizing treatments that yield the greatest overall well-being is morally justified, even if it means sacrificing individual preferences. This consequentialist approach emphasizes empirical assessment of outcomes, aligning moral decision-making with the promotion of collective happiness.

Comparative Analysis and Philosophical Engagement

The progression from empiricism to Kant’s transcendental philosophy reflects a response to the limitations of sensory-based knowledge, with Kant offering a synthesis that enables secure scientific and moral knowledge within the bounds of human cognition. The categorical imperative and utilitarianism represent competing but sometimes reconcilable approaches: Kant emphasizing duty and universal principles, and Mill prioritizing consequences and happiness.

Engaging with these philosophies reveals the ongoing ethical debate about the foundation of moral judgments—whether they should be grounded in rational universality or consequentialist outcomes. Modern ethical discourse often seeks a balanced perspective, recognizing the insights of both Kantian deontology and utilitarian pragmatism in addressing moral dilemmas such as human rights and social justice.

This comparative exploration underscores the importance of understanding the historical development of moral and epistemological theories, illustrating how philosophical ideas adapt to address human limitations and moral complexities.

References

• Berkeley, G. (1710). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. London: John Noon.
• Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by P. Guyer & A. Wood (1998). Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor (1998). Cambridge University Press.
• Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Reid, T. (1788). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart.
• Nye, M. (2010). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pojman, L. (2014). Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning.