Brian Ghilliotti

Middlesex Community College

Introduction to Philosophy
Final Exam Questions
5/7/2018

Describe Kant’s ethical views and explain two of his examples.

In general, Kant sought to develop a system of morality that de-emphasized the

metaphysical orientations of religion, and instead emphasized the use of logic for moral

reasonings. Kant’s moral system was divided into two main categories, which he called

Hypothetical Imperatives and Categorical Imperatives.

Hypothetical Imperatives are based on personal desires, and sought do address

issues of prudence versus questions of morality. To Kant, these problems could be

generally reduced to if-then statements. If I want to become the best runner, then I must

continuously train. These amount to the ethnical and moral choices that individuals

make impacting the quality of lives they want. If these are destructive desires, then

ethical and moral choices made by individuals who want to pursue these goals are okay

as long as not harm is done to others.

In another example, if someone wants to drink their life away, they must find the

cheapest source of alcohol AND consider never having a vehicle again so they do not

universalize drunk driving and potentially harm others. To Kant, this is perfectly

acceptable moral reasoning.

This leads to the second main category of Kant’s ethical system, which he

described as Categorical Imperatives. These Imperatives concerned ethical issues and

choices that had an impact on everyone in society. These issues usually involved moral

constants such murder, adultery, stealing, etc.

 To Kant, answers for these issues must be found through a human reasoning

processes, not through religious sources. One reasoning mechanism Kant developed

was the universalization test. In this test, any ethical decision and action taken by an

individual becomes “universalized”. However, this “universalized” action is in

contradiction with the Categorical Imperatives against stealing (as referenced in many

religious works, as much as Kant would not like to admit). If there is a contradiction,

then this “universalized” action, with any moral reasoning behind it, is immoral.

Kant also emphasized the “maxims of universal laws mechanism”, which

emphasized that actions taken toward individuals should be only be taken if the person

who takes such an action thinks they are worthy of application to all people. This is

basically a secularized version of Jesus’ Golden Rule.

Explain Rand’s critique of altruism, as well as her philosophical

response.

Rand defined altruism as a complete sense of selflessness that put all others

needs before the needs of the individual. To Rand, this would at the very least

ridiculous, and at the very worst very dangerous. People who want to put everyone else

before their own individual self, or ego, would eventually end up being taken advantage

of, and in reality get absolutely nothing out of it, despite whatever they were lead to

believe through the metaphysical ideological system that inspired their altruistic

behaviors. In reality, these people may end up driving themselves insane, or become

angry once they realized that they had been disillusioned.

Rand believed people can only effectively help others if they were in their best

capacity to help others. This implied a need to take care of one’s self first before taking
care of others. Rand was not critical of people helping others, but suggested it was most

effective if both the recipient and provider of such generosity both benefitted from the

charitable act.

At the very worst, Rand saw altruism as backdoor toward implementing social

systems that sought to completely crush individualism and the social systems that

supported it. One example of a social system that sought to smear out individuality were

socialistic political systems. To Rand, individual self interest was the most productive

driver of society. Altruism, to Rand’s mind, either led to socialist tyranny or anarchy.

This does not mean that Rand supported extreme interpretations of

individualism, such as Social Darwinism, which basically stated that the strongest

survive and by implication can do what they want. To Rand, this was an irrational pursuit

of self interest, and inherently self-destructive. So Rand did support some limits on the

pursuit of individualism that supported a rational general conduct of society.

What does it mean to be an overman?  Contrast the Nietzsche’s views

on the overman and the last man.

The concept of overman was partly developed as a criticism of church

philosophy. Nietzsche was brought up in a religious family, and his philosophical ideals

were partly inspired by a rejection of church ideals. The church de-emphasized self

empowerment, and instead encouraged individual empowerment through God. All

desire was denied, and the self containment mechanism was belief in God and his

principals.
 Nietzsche ultimately rejected this idea, and instead encouraged people to

embrace desire, control it, and overcome the shortcomings that desires created, to

spiritually evolve, without God (who surpassed this process, according to Nietzsche).

Nietzsche encouraged people embrace their humanness, struggle with their short

comings of being human, and become better people in the process. Once people have

mastered this process, characterized by external and internal struggles, they became,

according to Nietzsche, a “Superman”.

Nietzsche philosophical systems were so individual centric that he developed an

extreme hostility toward ideas, institutions, social values, and processes that he saw as

athreat toward individuality. To Nietzsche, the Church was an old mechanism that

worked against individuality and its growth through personal struggle. Nietzsche was

also witnessing the birth of modern ideological forces, such as Socialism, that worked

against this individual process that he cherished so much.

He also witnessed the development of the institution of the modern state, and

learned to appreciate its power to suppress individuality during the Franco-Prussian

War. In my mind, he was most fearful of this force against the individuality process that

he favored so much. He saw its ability to manipulate people into blindly supporting mass

destruction, and suppress any individual dissent against it, most effectively by social

peer pressure.

I would argue that Nietzsche was also hostile toward the social process of

industrialization, the later stages of which he was a direct witness to in Europe. This

process, from Nietzsche’s perspective, was by far the most effective way of suppressing

the individual process the he favored so much. The modern state, and its facilitation of
industrialization, would now be able to effectively distract people from the individual

process the he favored so much. This was to be replaced with superficial material

goods and the endless desire to obtain more of them. This is what the “overman”

process would be reduced to, pursuit of superficial needs. Humanity reduced to this

state would in reality become a “last man”, as it would now be in a state where the

evolutionary process would be suppressed.