The categorical imperative
Hello Rabbi.
Do you agree with the view that while Kant was able to prove that “pure practical reason” does indeed a priori require us to act so that the guiding rules of our will can always serve as principles of a general law, Kant did not answer the need to prove that man is indeed obligated to act in accordance with this famous “fact” of reason?
thanks.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But I still don't understand how the very concept of morality constitutes the authority to force me to follow morality?
The fact that reason has internalized the understanding of the concept of morality, what are the ways to follow it, etc. does not mean that it can force my body, which is a dimension outside of reason, to perform moral acts.
And if you do understand, why does understanding have the power/authority to compel? I explained why these are empty words. This is the meaning of the moral imperative, which is binding. If you don't understand that it is binding, then you haven't really understood that it is a moral imperative.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
