Kant and Socrates

chasteity is gener altogether(a)y delimitate as the ripeness or un expenditureiness of an proceeding or conduct establish on an agreed standard or measure of respect fitted norms. This argues a corporation where there is no dissenting voice, which in reality is non true. Cultural subjectivism promotes tolerance, scarce non for all, as thoroughgoingist estimation excludes any deviation from their prescribed unadulterated economic values (Jowett, 2000). Society, on the nervous strainer(a) hand, is a group of individuals that sh atomic number 18 a super acid system of beliefs, intent and thought. honorable standards argon begd so that a motion slight order of magnitude whitethorn live however, the quandary in ethics theory is how the piety deep down a society is organize (Vlastos, 1991). Morality and society, apparently, is in a soil of flux while ethics theorists strain to come up with an adequate honorable formula to qualify what is full and r crimee based on all cultural, social, policy- do and religious realities.The nonion of righteousness is very such(prenominal) taken from a cultural place setting yet this presumes that societies are likewise eer right in their judgments, so to differ with society is object lessonly wrong (Nikolaos, 2005). Among the more or less n unmatchedd for their philosophical studies regarding righteousness and ethics are Socrates and Im publicuel Kant. Both point kayoed that the comment of what is abhorrence depends on shade and experience and de patchds of the individual and society. Their interpretation of righteousity discusses non only the concept itself nevertheless also its implications to bits domain (Kants Moral doctrine, 2007). Thus, understanding what is good is not to be considered as an keen discourse al iodin exclusively is an as register to understand better the world.SocratesSocrates has provided great sustenance of thought in his studies for what he knew only more importantly because of his treatise and understanding of what he does not know. Socrates did not believe in the need to explain his transactions or thoughts and instead headed opposites exhaustively. Socrates regard for Sparta, his association with the Thirty Tyrants and his let soulal philosophical stance was utilize by his enemies for the accusation of treason against the submit (Vlastos, 1991). At the conviction of the footrace, which led to his resultant death by hemlock, there was not any element in Greek society that would represent modern solar day district attorney offices.At the uniform time jury selection also did not have the criteria that is implemented today and often represents the political dominants of the time. Civil cases were brought to attempt by private individuals who often also acted as the prosecution. Thus, there was no way to order whether there was probable cause as to accusations. in that location is also a impudence of guilt kind of than that of innocence. In Platos recollections of the trial, he points out that the prosecution, the restored democrats, de pardonly make assumptions contextually of Socrates t apieceings and philosophies (Jowett, 2000).Plato also recognizes that Socrates defense was unmatched that seemed to have ultimately put acrossn the jury the behest to find him guilty. His defense did not rattling defend his actions but rather questioned the formation by which he was being try in. Though in hindsight it is obvious that he held A and and sos in high regard, his philosophical speeches during his lifetime were sufficiently vague that his detractors comfortably could manipulate to appear the opposite (Nikolaos, 2005).Socrates on MoralityUnlike traditional Sophistic views on the determination of life which focused on existence life or kit and caboodle, Socrates viewed the moral worth of the soul or equity as paramount. He considered morality as not just particular to internal aspe cts or characteristics of an individual but extended its exposition into the familiar life of the individual. One of the primaeval virtues consort to Socrates is intimacy. Socrates proposed that rhetorical studies should consider morality practically rather than for the purpose of public service alone.According to Socrates, the omit of knowledge leads to the absence of virtue. Following this viewpoint, understanding what is moral is little in understanding virtue which in turn is important to be able to lead a moral life. Socrates describes these efforts at gaingin knowledge and thus leaving virtuously as the means to create value out of life a man who is true(p) for anything ought not to calculate the run across of living or dying he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong acting the part of a good man or of a bad (Jowett, 2000, para. 55)The showtime step for this process is to understand what virtue is and what it is not. What is no t moral is considered as delinquency-minded an act of evil can then be done by actions against other property causing him loss, against the person by physical harm or by treating him unjustly such as the demurral of rights or freedoms. In Platos Gorgias, Socrates supposes that good and evil are not simultaneous, and do not cease simultaneously, implying that though good and bad contradict each other, they can not exist without the other (Jowett, 1999, lines 361-362).Many of Socrates actions may be interpreted as satire on the Athenian society and tear down his statements during his trial can not be considered as defense was rather a philosophical treatise. When Socrates was asked why he did choose to flee before the trial or after it when his friends tried to liberate him from prison despite what they believed was a charade of a trial, Socrates replied that since he chose to live in Athens, he must bow to its laws careless(predicate) of the trial (Nikolaos, 2005). However, i f one already considers the ethical or moral components into the equation, it is then that the question of arbitrator becomes more difficult to evaluate. Thus, Socrates may in fact be making a statement as to the evaluator of the trial if not to its legality. Considering the components of prosecution, defense, jury and strain alone, one can consider that the trial prescribe to all requirements for the delivery of justice.Kant on SocratesKants Moral philosophy is one of the main alternatives to utilitarianism which marginalizes moral humanistic virtues. Kants view on morality is basically deontological which implies a focus on the action to be done regardless of the consequences (Kant The Moral, 2001). This implies that if a person is doing something that is right, then even if the results of his actions create a negative outcome, then he still did the right thing. There is also a prescriptive calibre to Kants view the assumption is that everyone should do what is right and that it should be universally right (Wood, 2004).Thus, for an action to be considered moral, it should be within the capacity of everyone and viewed as a lay out action universally (Kants Moral school of thought, 2007). Viewing Socrates action through Kants Moral Philosophy, there are arguments some(prenominal) to support the morality of Socrates actions. The challenge is in deciphering Socrates intentions and purpose which can sometime essay difficult since it is basic in and Socratic Method to question something.From Kants definition of morals in terms of the action rather than the outcome, Socrates can be considered as moral since his purpose for questioning the state and its leaders is to emphasize the need for the knowledge virtue (Kant The Moral, 2001). According to Plato, Socrates did not question the institutions of the states but rather the ignorance shadow it. Thus, Kant leave behind consider Socrates moral because he in facts teaches other virtue by his philosophical stu dies. As stated by Socrates in Apology, I can give you as proofs of this, not words only, but deeds, which you value more than words, (Jowett, 2000, para. 59)Another example is Socrates leave out of defense for himself during his trial. According to Platos Apology, the accusations against Socrates were an disincentive scheme gone badly. Rather than acceding to his detractors, Socrates chose not to give up his stands as a testament to his view of the mockery of justice that has become of the Athenian society. Supporting the Kants view of universality in the form of the law implemented in Athens,Socrates believed that he should be executed because of the fact that he has been found guilty according to Athenian law as attested by Socrates himself in his statement that to live in Athens, one must bow to its laws regardless. however his efforts at defensce according to him are not for his pursuit but rather for the sake of the citizenry I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God, or lightly correct his boon by condemning me (para. 57)Just the same time, it can be argued that Socrates actions are abominable based on Kants views (Kant The Moral, 2001). Socrates questioning the state is indeed against the Athenian law and therefore regardless his intentions for enlightenment, it is considered as sedition. The absolute temperament of Kantian moral philosophies leaves no exceptions commands are imperatives without categories. Though Socrates argued that virtuous characteristics represent absence of virtue is evil, he also stated that good and evil are not simultaneous, and do not cease simultaneously (Jowett, 1999, lines 342-344).Socrates, Kant and MoralityThe main get-go of conflict in the midst of the two philosophies on morality is that Kants definition is so absolute and leaves very little musculus quadriceps femoris more the resolution of moral dilemmas which in contrast was the focus of Socrates work if not his own life (Wood, 2004). Consider Socrates final stage statement during his trialFor if I bear witness you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot withhold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living that you are still less likely to believe (Jowett, 2000, para. 63).The strict requirements for tenability then precludes morality for those who are in full rational such as those who are mentally incapacitated or limited because of retardation or any other psychological condition (Kants Moral Philosophy, 2007). Though moral autonomy does exist in both(prenominal) perspectives, Kants moral philosophy leaves less flexibility towards its definition because of its requirement of universality.It should be kept in mind that the setting of the two works is distinctly different. In the case of Socrates, the motivation and the consequences are given as much importance as the act itself. When he was accused that he did spoke falsely of the gods, he used as tell his belief in the religious, such as the existence of the soul, and divinities by stating that, Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirit or demigods? (Jowett, 2000, para. 49). In the case of Kant, this will not be a effectual argument sinceIn Socrates discourse, punishment of the act contravenes evil and while in Kant, contravention is from the doing what is right alone. In both instances, what is not moral is considered a reality on mans life and both definitions require affirmative action against what is not moral. To be able to do so, ones character and virtue must set what is considered what is not moral. Therefore restoration of evil done is equated with the punishment that one receives for t he act.The fundamental difference in the definition between the two is that Kants moral mischance is an independent act to a moral right by virtue of the lack of impact of consequences while Socrates main seat of immorality is based on iniquity resulting form the action. Thus the dilemma of immorality in the former is an ethical one and immorality in the latter is presented as a social dilemma. Reflecting on both works, there is a realization that definitions of what is not moral may differ in many ways but all studies that focus on it have a common purpose. In understanding the nature and manner of what is not moral, a person is able to better not according it to it.ReferencesJowett, Benjamin (1999).Gorgias by Plato. Project Guttenberg. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 http//www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1672?msg=welcome_strangerJowett, Benjamin (2000). Platos Apology. Retrieved on April 2, 2007 http//classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html=