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.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
I disagree with the very separation you proposed. If reason requires it, there is no need to prove anything beyond that. This is the meaning of the claim that reason requires it.
As someone might say to me: I know that murder is immoral, but why is it forbidden to do something immoral? This question reflects a lack of understanding. When we say that something is immoral, we are saying, among other things, that it is forbidden to do it. This is the content of the concept "moral."
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer