COMIA Questions for the Third Exam

The ethics of Immanuel Kant provides the best defense for the traditional/modernist ethical theories, kant defends traditional morality by basing it on reason rather than the divine command. Man is rational he says, as in man has capacity to reason, and therefore man is moral. This concept helps man deal with the moral freedom provided by free will and free-will allows for the freedom of choice. Unlike other traditional ethics therefore Kant does not prescribe a Universal code of what is ethical and what is not, he merely states that whatever we do we must do it because it is our belief, as based in the objects we considered as facts, that these are the things we ought to do. Kant's theory does not "rob a person personal autonomy" that would lead to a "failure in morality" because on the contrary he empowers man to test his limits with regards to his freedom, that is rational principles for the intellectual direction of the activity of free beings, as said by Jefferie Murphy.

I also see a parallelism between the Existentialist and Kantian's view of an individual's freedom of choice, so they do not necessarily need to clash with each other. both recognizes that an individual has his own capability and freedom to do what he/she wants but still insist that the most effective kind of freedom is still one with boundaries according to Kant or structures according to Existentialist. The more structured a society is the more functional it should be and the individual would benefit best because of it. The apparent difference between Kantianism and Existentialism could only be resolve only by one person at a time. if that person out of his ratioanality considers that both system of thought in actuality reinforces the concepts of freedom he/she beholds because both may hav existed in different times but their struggles are the same and it is in that that they are united

its sad that the existentialist part came last in our discussion out of all, it think it is one i give more preference to. Especially in the discussions with freedom. Existentialist actively promote the freedom of individuals, the freedom to exercise free will infact is a universal truth in existentialist ethics. Structures are in placed only in so far as to elevate individual freedom meaning that moral laws and edicts that are restrictive should be fought against. This theory holds a similrity with kantian ethics the only difference is that existentialism is more easy to understant, kantian ethics could be very theoretical and difficult to apply in daily life.

My personal code of ethics would be closer to existentialism than in any other code of ethics we have discussed. This is not to say that I am devoid of any and all forms of faith like existentialism's most common critique (in fact it is not!) but like the latter I see caution in the existence of organized relgion as it serves as a maniplative tool to control the masses. Faith and Religion are two different things. I believe that freedom should be the ultimate goal of an individual, in all forms but that it is not merely a state of being it is a struggle that must be won, therefore freedom is something you ought to fight for. Accountability rests in the individual, you are responsible for your actions regardless of whatever circumstances (i.e. not voting in the last student elections because you happen to not have a class on that day) you found yourself into it is in your responsiility to surpass it. The handicapped, mentally retarded, those who do not have the ability to fight for themselves rests in the hands that takes care of them, be it their family or the government that should be accountable. For they are beings and that in itself, regrdless if they did not develop inherent biological facets, who occupies a space of their own in this world, is of worth.