Gourav Rohidas’s Reviews > Ethical Philosophy: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/Metaphysical Principles of Virtue/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns > Status Update

Isn’t necessarily right. Thus, the difference between those two can be weird. Right as it ended, it talked of Virtue, or doing the right thing for the right reasons. I’m very pleased that the entirety of the book will not only cover the theory of ethics and morals, but also the practicality of them in the world. I hope keeps on teaching me more.

And something is simply legislative if its attached to external rewards and punishment rather than duty. The difference between Duty and Legislation is complex, as Legislation has roots from Duty in the sense that Legislation is made to have something that is righteous to the done. Similarly, if legislation is simply just law with punishment and reward (e.g, Dictator), than to say that one has an obligation to do so

This is because the maxim behind isnt wrong. This then brought us into the differences then between Ethicality and Legality, as well as how these differ from Legislation and Legality. Something is ethical only if it is done for duty same; the same act is moral only if it is done for the right reason. Something follows legality but not morality if it is done in accordance to law, but not for the right reasons, and

This section of the book talks more on the practicality of ethics and morals. Though the ideas of a categorical imperative and priori principles is in theory correct, its application to a world which is constantly changing rather than simple makes it more complicated to apply. The example they gave is that of how killing oneself is wrong, but a soldier doing so to not compromise information isn’t inherently wrong.

in deciding so. Since the language is sometimes hard to understand, i’m glad I was able to atleast get this much out. These questions are indeed the basis of Ethical Philosophy, and further how we can be sure that abiding by it autonomously.

Is able to justify an action. Again, this can be done so long as we choose to do so. I also found it interesting how it bridges a similarity with intelligence: We can know what is right or wrong, but the reasons for it can be shallow, with it often that we have opinions simply because we were told of them. We think something is wrong for the same reason it is wrong, rather than having other reasons and rationale in

Sake of being right. However, concerning ourselves, there is more hope as we are infact “transcendental”, able to make decisions autonomously though simultaneously also affected by material nature. This reveals to us that it is in fact possible for the categorical imperative to he practical, so long as we choose to do things according to law and for law sake. The section also raises the idea if a pure rational

Very very interesting start.

Maxim becomes a rule done solely for duty, or one done because individuals also have some form of gain from it. In a sense, a categorical imperative is impossible, as any sense of self interest that outweighs the “right thing to do”, will leave said maxim if more gain is achieved by doing so. However, the whole point of said maxim was that each individual has their own autonomy or personal gain from said maxim.

Very interesting start. Ive gotten a basic understanding of Kants goals in these books: To figure out if a categorical imperative is possible, and if self-interest can truly still live if one is. A categorical imperative put simply is a universal maxim that benefits the community as a whole, but is also one in which each individual benefits and has a say in said maxim. The main conflict, is the extent to which the